INTENSITY²
Arena for the Competitive => Main Event Callouts => Topic started by: odeon on December 25, 2010, 10:41:23 AM
-
He flooded several threads with images (the same one, actually, linked to ovwer and over and over again). AFAIK you haven't done anything like that.
He behaves like a kid.
..and Richard on the other hand doesn't?
Odeon let's be honest.
Richard behaves like a kid and is just as in your face with posting irritating images again and again.
He also accuses the Admin of abusing their Admin privileges and acts is every bit as childish and as much of a whiny retard as Duke...if not more.
Difference? You like Richard and Richard has been a member longer.
That is the truth and whether Duke deserves a bit of sinbinning is neither here nor there. It just pisses me off having Richard be a dick to no lesser degree and cheer on Duke's sinbinning and/or blabbering whilst everyone has to pander to his unchecked douchbaggery.
I hope his hemorrhoids grow teeth.
Fine. Let's be honest.
I didn't blabberize Duke because he was behaving like a kid. It's something he was good at long before this little incident. I blabberized him because he repeatedly flooded threads, making them impossible for anyone else to read, and then ignored my warnings, telling me that he'd continue until Richard was sinbinned and that he would create new accounts to flood I2 with if I sinbinned him.
That's the truth. Had Richard flooded the board I would have done the same. Had you flooded the board, I would have done the same. Had CBC flooded-- you get the picture.
Nobody is sinbinned because they behave like kids. If that was the case, a lot of us, me included, would have to be sinbinned or blabberized or just stopped. Duke tried to make threads unreadable for others and ignored the warnings, and that's why this happened. I don't give a fuck about people accusing us to abuse our admin privileges and I doubt that the others care either. We aren't that sensitive. We may respond and defend ourselves but nobody is sinbinned or blabberized because of something as petty as that.
Don't believe me? A callout might be in order.
Yes a callout will be in order.
I don't think you are necessarily lying but viewing this through a bit of a filter.
Take your time with this. It is Christmas. Bad timing. But when you are ready lead the way.
Tell me where I'm favouring any member unjustly, or--just as importantly--blabberizing/sinbinning one on unfair grounds. Flooding the board, making it unreadable to others, harming it, etc, necessitates action but throwing tantrums sans the above (i e, behaving like a child) does not.
An example: posting a few dozen links to an image in a single post and then repeating that a couple of times takes only a few seconds but is more than enough to make a thread unreadable. Using your big fucking peters as an avatar is tasteless and boring but not nearly enough for more than a temporary ignore, that is, if you worry about kids or unsuspecting adults at work walking by your screen.
Tell me where I'm letting Richard off the hook because I like him.
Unless, of course, you simply consider Richard a bore and think it enough to blabberize or sinbin him. If that's the case, then we have nothing to discuss.
-
:popcorn:
-
Tell me where I'm favouring any member unjustly, or--just as importantly--blabberizing/sinbinning one on unfair grounds. Flooding the board, making it unreadable to others, harming it, etc, necessitates action but throwing tantrums sans the above (i e, behaving like a child) does not.
An example: posting a few dozen links to an image in a single post and then repeating that a couple of times takes only a few seconds but is more than enough to make a thread unreadable. Using your big fucking peters as an avatar is tasteless and boring but not nearly enough for more than a temporary ignore, that is, if you worry about kids or unsuspecting adults at work walking by your screen.
Tell me where I'm letting Richard off the hook because I like him.
Unless, of course, you simply consider Richard a bore and think it enough to blabberize or sinbin him. If that's the case, then we have nothing to discuss.
Rather than let you dictate the terms of what I ought or ought not explain to make my point or back my claim I will put forth my own rationale and reasons for holding my views on this.
You will probably be right in assuming that I think Richard a bore and not much more could be said of Duke. I do not grace either with anything close to a good opinion.
But enough of this. Let's take it as read that I believe them to be retards and not much to merit them. Let's compare them and their actions.
Duke
----------
Ugly, childish, whiny, arrogant, opinionated, attention whore, who cites bad upbringing for his behavior and being a jerk generally. Will accuse anyone of being insensitive to his (special?) needs if they don't humour him being a jerk (or worse react to him), and again believe the fact that this is barely moderated and he has had a horrid upbringing he cites as reason enough to do what he wants.
Richard
--------
Ugly, childish, whiny, arrogant, opinionated, attention whore, who cites bad upbringing for his behavior and being a jerk generally. Will accuse anyone of being insensitive to his (special?) needs if they don't humour him being a jerk (or worse react to him), and again believe the fact that this is barely moderated and he has had a horrid upbringing he cites as reason enough to do what he wants.
Duke's spam
------------------
Duke, if he doesn't get his way, and to make some point that probably has a little merit to it, will do something really retarded and will not heed any advice or censor.
What he does? He makes the forum difficult for others, posting image after image on threads all around the board that people can not prevent and for which people can not navigate around. In opposition to this, he thumbs his nose up at others and Admin alike and says that he has every reason or right or what have you.
Richard's cock-playing avatar
---------------------------------------
Richard, if he doesn't get his way, and to make some point that probably has a no rationale or merit to it, will do something really retarded and will not heed any advice or censor.
What he does? He makes the forum difficult for others, posting his cock avatar on threads all around the board that people can not prevent and for which people can not navigate around. In opposition to this, he thumbs his nose up at others and Admin alike and says that he has every reason or right or what have you.
Duke's Punishment
---------------------------
Blabberising followed by sinbinning. (Fair enough were it not compared to the below punishment)
Richard's punishment
-----------------------------
:-\
Hell after doing this and having members pissed off and causing a ruckus, he them accuses the Admin of doing the wrong thing and somehow justifying his actions in his own mind as self-righteous. Threatens to do use the same again. Asks to be deleted by the corrupt Admin .... who go to great pains to stroke his ego and wish him not to go and talk him down.
Then he goes ahead and does the cock posting avatar thing again, and again believes this is fair go. He also attacks Queen Victoria's daughter and upsets members (for which he doesn't apologise but starts a thread - "why I am like this" as explanation). At every point and turn he brushes aside any responsibility or accountability.
What happened when Vodzy attacked your kids, Odeon? What happened when Richard attacked Queen Victoria's?
On the backdrop of the avatar thing too. Again this is semi-moderated so on that basis could be a fair call were it not compared, as it has been, with Duke's punishmen,t for no more than what Richard has done, and certainly in my humble opinion, far less.
So yes Odeon, certainly it speaks to me of favoritism and certainly it is call out worthy.
You do realise the irony is that Duke's problem was Richard not getting reprimanded for anything he did?
-
Dude you can fuck off. nobody is showing me better treatment because of anything! you've had it out for me since practicly you've been here, and to be honest I didnt have a problem with you, the squid, rage, or anyone first. When i was shown a bad time guess what? I return the favor because i'm not letting anyone walk all over me.
And yes this is a somewhat moderated website, for when someone does something against the law, or pulls some bullshit like what that tard pentagram does! Not for showing a cock.
I say some shit because I can. telling someone "i hope your kid dies" isnt against the law, is it? or spam. So I think it should be considerd ok, Unfortunatley I think this website isnt for you because you seem like the fucking sensative type. And i never asked any specific admin to delete me only to make her stroke my ego, I asked the admins wich of course I dont ever remember callaway doing.
And if anyone has any over inflated self importance who likes there ego stroked its you. How quickly you forget all the "can I be a moderator?" over on Wp bullshit. only to run right back here to tell all your friends. you do it there and AFF
I beleive i should be able to say or post my cock here, aslong as its legal. dont like it? too bad!
-
Dude you can fuck off. nobody is showing me better treatment because of anything! you've had it out for me since practicly you've been here, and to be honest I didnt have a problem with you, the squid, rage, or anyone first. When i was shown a bad time guess what? I return the favor because i'm not letting anyone walk all over me.
And yes this is a somewhat moderated website, for when someone does something against the law, or pulls some bullshit like what that tard pentagram does! Not for showing a cock.
I say some shit because I can. telling someone "i hope your kid dies" isnt against the law, is it? or spam. So I think it should be considerd ok, Unfortunatley I think this website isnt for you because you seem like the fucking sensative type. And i never asked any specific admin to delete me only to make her stroke my ego, I asked the admins wich of course I dont ever remember callaway doing.
And if anyone has any over inflated self importance who likes there ego stroked its you. How quickly you forget all the "can I be a moderator?" over on Wp bullshit. to run right back here to tell all your friends. you do it there and AFF
I beleive i should be able to say or post my cock here, aslong as its legal. dont like it? too bad!
Ladies and Gentleman I bring you Richard
See you guys later. I'll be visiting my sister for the holidays wich means i wont be online. :zoinks:
i might return after the new year. have a safe one and merry christmas!
Actually I do. this isnt the only BB i visit. Some people elsewhere value everything i have to say, and likewise. This board is full of a bunch of liars, childish two faced hypocrites that i rarely want to be seen with these days
Well what the fuck are you doing posting so much here. Stop bitching out how much this forum inconveniences you and treats you so badly and threatening to leave. Just fuck off and don't come back you fucking baby.
Merry Christmas Richard
Let's take him all very seriously
-
I used this face, :zoinks: to express how i was joking.
-
I used this face, :zoinks: to express how i was joking.
Cool story Bro. :autism:
(I used this face because you posted.)
-
I hope your kids get killed by a kangaroo. :M
-
Tell me where I'm favouring any member unjustly, or--just as importantly--blabberizing/sinbinning one on unfair grounds. Flooding the board, making it unreadable to others, harming it, etc, necessitates action but throwing tantrums sans the above (i e, behaving like a child) does not.
An example: posting a few dozen links to an image in a single post and then repeating that a couple of times takes only a few seconds but is more than enough to make a thread unreadable. Using your big fucking peters as an avatar is tasteless and boring but not nearly enough for more than a temporary ignore, that is, if you worry about kids or unsuspecting adults at work walking by your screen.
Tell me where I'm letting Richard off the hook because I like him.
Unless, of course, you simply consider Richard a bore and think it enough to blabberize or sinbin him. If that's the case, then we have nothing to discuss.
Rather than let you dictate the terms of what I ought or ought not explain to make my point or back my claim I will put forth my own rationale and reasons for holding my views on this.
OK.
You will probably be right in assuming that I think Richard a bore and not much more could be said of Duke. I do not grace either with anything close to a good opinion.
IMO, both sometimes post readable stuff.
But enough of this. Let's take it as read that I believe them to be retards and not much to merit them. Let's compare them and their actions.
Duke
----------
Ugly, childish, whiny, arrogant, opinionated, attention whore, who cites bad upbringing for his behavior and being a jerk generally. Will accuse anyone of being insensitive to his (special?) needs if they don't humour him being a jerk (or worse react to him), and again believe the fact that this is barely moderated and he has had a horrid upbringing he cites as reason enough to do what he wants.
No really interesting or unique, is it? The same could be said about any number of other members here.
Richard
--------
Ugly, childish, whiny, arrogant, opinionated, attention whore, who cites bad upbringing for his behavior and being a jerk generally. Will accuse anyone of being insensitive to his (special?) needs if they don't humour him being a jerk (or worse react to him), and again believe the fact that this is barely moderated and he has had a horrid upbringing he cites as reason enough to do what he wants.
There is an echo in here. :laugh:
Duke's spam
------------------
Duke, if he doesn't get his way, and to make some point that probably has a little merit to it, will do something really retarded and will not heed any advice or censor.
What he does? He makes the forum difficult for others, posting image after image on threads all around the board that people can not prevent and for which people can not navigate around. In opposition to this, he thumbs his nose up at others and Admin alike and says that he has every reason or right or what have you.
He also said that he'd do it until Richard was sinbinned, adding that if he was, he would come back under a different name and keep on spamming the board.
Richard's cock-playing avatar
---------------------------------------
Richard, if he doesn't get his way, and to make some point that probably has a no rationale or merit to it, will do something really retarded and will not heed any advice or censor.
What he does? He makes the forum difficult for others, posting his cock avatar on threads all around the board that people can not prevent and for which people can not navigate around. In opposition to this, he thumbs his nose up at others and Admin alike and says that he has every reason or right or what have you.
There is an ignore button.
I know what you'll say--the ignore button can be used on Duke, too. Problem is, when you reply to someone, the ignore mod doesn't work. In Richard's case it's no problem because his avatar isn't visible when you quote. In Duke's, however, his spam can still make posting very difficult, especially to someone with a slow connection or old hardware.
See the difference?
Duke's Punishment
---------------------------
Blabberising followed by sinbinning. (Fair enough were it not compared to the below punishment)
He is not sinbinned.
Richard's punishment
-----------------------------
:-\
Hell after doing this and having members pissed off and causing a ruckus, he them accuses the Admin of doing the wrong thing and somehow justifying his actions in his own mind as self-righteous. Threatens to do use the same again. Asks to be deleted by the corrupt Admin .... who go to great pains to stroke his ego and wish him not to go and talk him down.
???
Who are you talking about? Me? I did NOT try to talk him into staying. If you think I'm wrong, then provide the links that prove me wrong. Or have the guts to admit that you were wrong. I'm pretty sure none of the admins did anything to make him stay.
And again, nobody is blabberized or sinbinned because of some petty accusation made in anger.
Then he goes ahead and does the cock posting avatar thing again, and again believes this is fair go. He also attacks Queen Victoria's daughter and upsets members (for which he doesn't apologise but starts a thread - "why I am like this" as explanation). At every point and turn he brushes aside any responsibility or accountability.
I still haven't seen the attack on Queen Victoria's daughter. I also haven't seen the post reported by anyone, QV included. If she thinks it is a problem, then an admin should be notified because as I've explained on numerous occasions before, we don't normally moderate anything here but we will investigate and possibly act if a member thinks there is a problem.
We don't always, however. Oh and we also don't let the rest of the membership know about those decisions.
The cock avatar thing was just as easy to ignore the second time as the first, though.
What happened when Vodzy attacked your kids, Odeon? What happened when Richard attacked Queen Victoria's?
See above.
And as I said when my daughter was attacked and I was accused of the same shit, only it was about Phlexor (I think): if he thought it was a problem, he should have let me know. I think he said it wasn't.
Vodzy attacking my daughter out of the blue, however, pissed me off sufficiently to act. I said then and I repeat it now, I am *not* paying for the privilege of having some internet tough guy insult my family. It's not going to happen. Not then, not now, not ever. Think it's unfair? Too bad, mate. And it really isn't unfair either, because as I've said before, you only have to let me or another admin know.
We do not automatically moderate anything, however.
On the backdrop of the avatar thing too. Again this is semi-moderated so on that basis could be a fair call were it not compared, as it has been, with Duke's punishmen,t for no more than what Richard has done, and certainly in my humble opinion, far less.
So yes Odeon, certainly it speaks to me of favoritism and certainly it is call out worthy.
You do realise the irony is that Duke's problem was Richard not getting reprimanded for anything he did?
The irony here is that you got the whole thing wrong.
So let me ask you this:
Do you think it's enough for a member to be an "ugly, childish, whiny, arrogant, opinionated, attention whore" to be blabberized or sinbinned? I already know that Richard, for some reason, got under your skin but is it really something to punish him for?
-
For your information: Duke is no longer blabberized.
-
I still haven't seen the attack on Queen Victoria's daughter. I also haven't seen the post reported by anyone, QV included. If she thinks it is a problem, then an admin should be notified because as I've explained on numerous occasions before, we don't normally moderate anything here but we will investigate and possibly act if a member thinks there is a problem.
We don't always, however. Oh and we also don't let the rest of the membership know about those decisions.
This is something I have an issue with. I feel that open an policy is the best policy. Yes some people will bitch, but it's best to keep people informed to keep the conspiracy accusations to a minimum. :tinfoil:
-
Agreed. Also, how can anyone learn when they don't see the process of resolution?
-
What I meant was that the reports or private PMs that didn't result in any action were kept private--I really don't see a reason to call attention to any of it.
-
Ok. I'm not sure of the best approach on that one (any more than I was sure about the whole Wikileaks deal :P ). But I think it's better to err on the side of openness.
I know the same rules don't apply to you as to everyone else, because you're paying the bill.
-
If people contact me in confidence, I owe it to them to keep my mouth shut unless they think it's OK not to.
-
I know the same rules don't apply to you as to everyone else, because you're paying the bill.
We all know that.
Isn't this site moderated?
No. Although you need to stay within the TOS. And not piss me off.
Wish I could find the one where you were all curt, saying something along the lines of how you don't pay to be messed with, and other people's fights are their own and if it spans into the real world then don't expect any help. That was a good one.
If people contact me in confidence, I owe it to them to keep my mouth shut unless they think it's OK not to.
Stand up guy.
-
Well, i have to say. That yes maybe something sir_les points out is TRUE, for once.
He who pays the bills makes the rules. We all (i'm assuming now) live in sociaty? there are rules. And i'm also assuming we all live by the "rules" So The real question it seems like to me is where to draw the line on whats distasteful and whats not?
I personally think everything i've said on this website while some might find it the wrong thing to say, Its legal to do so. I never made any threatening action against anyones kids or anything like that
I persoanlly believe, (and what I thought this website allowed) was any language could be said that was legal, and not against the hosting companys TOS. So, If anything i've ever said is against these i will make a full apology.
If not, theres no way in hell I will
-
I know the same rules don't apply to you as to everyone else, because you're paying the bill.
We all know that.
Tell me what rules those are, please.
Isn't this site moderated?
No. Although you need to stay within the TOS. And not piss me off.
Wish I could find the one where you were all curt, saying something along the lines of how you don't pay to be messed with, and other people's fights are their own and if it spans into the real world then don't expect any help. That was a good one.
You might want to locate it, instead of trying to paraphrase me or lift things out of context. ::)
If people contact me in confidence, I owe it to them to keep my mouth shut unless they think it's OK not to.
Stand up guy.
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm here? If you have something to say, then just say it.
-
Well, i have to say. That yes maybe something sir_les points out is TRUE, for once.
He who pays the bills makes the rules. We all (i'm assuming now) live in sociaty? there are rules. And i'm also assuming we all live by the "rules" So The real question it seems like to me is where to draw the line on whats distasteful and whats not?
I personally think everything i've said on this website while some might find it the wrong thing to say, Its legal to do so. I never made any threatening action against anyones kids or anything like that
I persoanlly believe, (and what I thought this website allowed) was any language could be said that was legal, and not against the hosting companys TOS. So, If anything i've ever said is against these i will make a full apology.
If not, theres no way in hell I will
There's the stuff that is about the TOS, Richard, yes. Break against something in there and you will be stopped because there is no point in allowing any single member to risk the board.
But then there's also the stuff that is not regulated in a TOS of any kind but will nevertheless turn people against you. Insulting family members who aren't here is one of those.
-
Tell me what rules those are, please.
The rules of engagement. Maybe a poor choice of wording, rules. More meaning this is your site and enforcement of any kind has always been observed as coming from you, so it makes sense that nothing would really apply to you the same as the membership.
You might want to locate it, instead of trying to paraphrase me or lift things out of context. ::)
Yes. Rightly so. Will see if I can drum it up. It's one of the reasons I've stayed here.
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm here? If you have something to say, then just say it.
No. You've got me all wrong. I do think you're a stand up guy.
-
But then there's also the stuff that is not regulated in a TOS of any kind but will nevertheless turn people against you. Insulting family members who aren't here is one of those.
Wich means you pay the bills and I or whoever can say whatever the fuck they want?
sir les. go fishing! (we need a good fishing emoticon) :M
-
But then there's also the stuff that is not regulated in a TOS of any kind but will nevertheless turn people against you. Insulting family members who aren't here is one of those.
Wich means you pay the bills and I or whoever can say whatever the fuck they want?
sir les. go fishing! (we need a good fishing emoticon) :M
We have one! :fish:
-
You might want to locate it, instead of trying to paraphrase me or lift things out of context. ::)
Yes. Rightly so. Will see if I can drum it up. It's one of the reasons I've stayed here.
Couldn't locate it. My apologies. Although you did repeat the first point on the previous page in this thread. So not really out of context.
I am *not* paying for the privilege of having some internet tough guy insult my family. It's not going to happen. Not then, not now, not ever. Think it's unfair? Too bad, mate.
Have seen your kids attacked at least a couple of time since being here, and you always take the same stance. Won't bother discussing the other point since I can't find the post.
-
But then there's also the stuff that is not regulated in a TOS of any kind but will nevertheless turn people against you. Insulting family members who aren't here is one of those.
Wich means you pay the bills and I or whoever can say whatever the fuck they want?
sir les. go fishing! (we need a good fishing emoticon) :M
We have one! :fish:
Thats good
-
Tell me what rules those are, please.
The rules of engagement. Maybe a poor choice of wording, rules. More meaning this is your site and enforcement of any kind has always been observed as coming from you, so it makes sense that nothing would really apply to you the same as the membership.
You might want to locate it, instead of trying to paraphrase me or lift things out of context. ::)
Yes. Rightly so. Will see if I can drum it up. It's one of the reasons I've stayed here.
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm here? If you have something to say, then just say it.
No. You've got me all wrong. I do think you're a stand up guy.
Then I apologise. I thought you were implying things. My bad. :-[
-
IMO, both sometimes post readable stuff.
Richard is braindead and his spelling and syntax is hopeless. That said, his twin retard Duke, has a reasonable grasp of the English language and its intricacies. I am not above the odd mistake in grammar or spelling or syntax but ...well you "shurely have scene Ricktards posts".
No really interesting or unique, is it? The same could be said about any number of other members here.
Not really. I think that these two are similar and share many similar qualities to their retarded twin cousins, General Razorbeard and Sol. I rate them more highly than the latter, but the similarities are there. The Narcissism, inability to give a shit about others and so on. Differences too of course. I personally think if I had to rate them I would rate Duke above Richard then above Razorbeard and slightly above Sol.
Trying to infer these guys (or any of them) are like the rest of us........... :O_o:
There is an echo in here. :laugh:
Yup they have got to be related somewhere along the line.
He also said that he'd do it until Richard was sinbinned, adding that if he was, he would come back under a different name and keep on spamming the board.
Yup sounds like a his heart was in the right place and it could not be aimed at a nicer bloke..
The only reason he chose this course of action Odeon....is because the guy is a hopeless fucking retard. :D
There is an ignore button.
Yes you know what I am going to say here. (The other point of course is when you log on you are not pre-warned with this knowledge that all the dick and boob shots are not contained and any thread you enter with Richard having ever posted is liable to get a small dick in your face as it were. THEN after you cop this, you can put it on ignore ,if you think that other members ought to dick-tate your actions)
I know what you'll say--the ignore button can be used on Duke, too. Problem is, when you reply to someone, the ignore mod doesn't work. In Richard's case it's no problem because his avatar isn't visible when you quote. In Duke's, however, his spam can still make posting very difficult, especially to someone with a slow connection or old hardware.
See the difference?
Oh hell Odeon, there was always this "difference". Is it one to "hang your hat on"? Really?
This was not about the exact same two people acting same manner deserving the exact same treatment.
This was about the retard twins who act similarly (not without any difference) and with whom one is censored/punished/infracted/whatever and the other isn't.
In fact Richard when I initially responded to you was cheering on Duke's punishment and conversing with you about how his blabberising, and here is me thinking, "Fuck me, that dumb bastard has a lot of nerve passing judgment on Duke after his latest fun and games. What a retard. Why the fuck is Odeon meekly agreeing with him and not saying Richard "Shut the fuck up. You are about half a step from having your balls in a sling here yourself, I would not try for the moral high ground"? Then I realised.
He is not sinbinned.
Ah OK my mistake I was sure I saw that on his profile. It may have been General Razorbeard or one of the others. Having said that he was blabberised and so he was punished/infracted/disciplined by Admin. As far as I know there is four punishments by Admin. Warning, blabberising, sinbinning and banning. So in the scheme of things he was punished by Admin and Ricktard had not been for what I consider just as culpable.
Again not a difference to hang one's hat on as a sealing argument against.
???
Who are you talking about? Me? I did NOT try to talk him into staying. If you think I'm wrong, then provide the links that prove me wrong. Or have the guts to admit that you were wrong. I'm pretty sure none of the admins did anything to make him stay.
And again, nobody is blabberized or sinbinned because of some petty accusation made in anger.
Oh indeed you did. He specifically asked to be deleted as he was railing against you and the site in general.
I want my screename deleted in a weeks time after i Log off of here today. Thanks.
I'm going to quote this, just so you know and lock my topic.
I did not systamaticlly put 15 people on my ignore list, thats too much of a hassle. i ignore people right under there screename. I like callaway, but the evidence doesnt lie. I supose there could be a glitch, but that would have to be a majore one
So, in closing if i'm wrong i'll eat my words but something fishy is going on here.
I thought you were leaving?
I still am, unless someone changes my mind. much like congress, i want my record in the statement
and i want this topic locked. dont unlock it again please callaway. since its only going to turn into a fight, or others want to derail it good fucking bye, I made my point and wouldnt do so lightly
Pretty blatant huh? In fact he never actually admitted that he in fact did not want to go and that he was actually wrong about the ignore thing or that the issue was resolved. That much so that he now weeks later revisits this with a callout on Callaway.
You humoured the retard because you did not want him deleted.
I still haven't seen the attack on Queen Victoria's daughter. I also haven't seen the post reported by anyone, QV included. If she thinks it is a problem, then an admin should be notified because as I've explained on numerous occasions before, we don't normally moderate anything here but we will investigate and possibly act if a member thinks there is a problem.
We don't always, however. Oh and we also don't let the rest of the membership know about those decisions.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,16033.msg687368.html#msg687368
I hope your daughter dies of a siezure in the bathtub! :evillaugh:
The cock avatar thing was just as easy to ignore the second time as the first, though.
So yup in both instances we have it in our faces and then have to scramble to find the right way to screen this or his avatar. Sorry Odeon, but fuck that. Why ought he dictate the way we can view the board? I actually prefer spam. Besides it is always hindsight stuff. Hit in the face with Richard cock and then know to act and of course prior to this no warning. This is all good fun of course for Richard because by his own admission, he doesn't give a shit.
See above.
And as I said when my daughter was attacked and I was accused of the same shit, only it was about Phlexor (I think): if he thought it was a problem, he should have let me know. I think he said it wasn't.
Vodzy attacking my daughter out of the blue, however, pissed me off sufficiently to act. I said then and I repeat it now, I am *not* paying for the privilege of having some internet tough guy insult my family. It's not going to happen. Not then, not now, not ever. Think it's unfair? Too bad, mate. And it really isn't unfair either, because as I've said before, you only have to let me or another admin know.
We do not automatically moderate anything, however.
You know I don't give that much of a fuck about whether Duke is blabberised or sinbinned or banned or whatever. I also don't much care what does or doesn't happen to Ricktard. Sure as hell will call out bullshit if i see it or if it looks like such to me. I don't do subtle that well and I don't ignore the Elephant in the lounge room and pretend it is not there.
This why and what I called
That is the truth and whether Duke deserves a bit of sinbinning is neither here nor there. It just pisses me off having Richard be a dick to no lesser degree and cheer on Duke's sinbinning and/or blabbering whilst everyone has to pander to his unchecked douchebaggery.
I think that is more than honest and I know you like Duke a lot less than Sticky Ricky. I join the dots well enough to see what I consider similar actions getting different treatment, to form an educated guess as to why. I was calling the inconsistency I saw. Nothing big or dramatic. You wanted to put it to callout? I am happy to thrash this out. At the same token, I don't care. You can do or say what you want. Your site.
Ricky can be what he is and be left unchecked by his actions. I am not going to cry into my computer keyboard about it.
But if you want my opinion I will discuss it freely without toning it down or playing it up.
The irony here is that you got the whole thing wrong.
So let me ask you this:
Do you think it's enough for a member to be an "ugly, childish, whiny, arrogant, opinionated, attention whore" to be blabberized or sinbinned? I already know that Richard, for some reason, got under your skin but is it really something to punish him for?
No you got it wrong Odeon.
In trying to ask the question, and making the assumption, you are again trying to dictate the terms of how I will address things, and placing a context or subtext that doesn't exist.
Now did I say that being ugly, childish, whiny, arrogant, opinionated, attention whore was reason enough to punish someone? Really?
No serious Odeon. Give it a shot. Tell me where I have alluded to this. No vague assertions but something concrete. I have actually addressed points that have had to do with his actions and not his general personality.
This is not what you are stating here. So show me and we can discuss this ....or YOU can "provide the links that prove me wrong. Or have the guts to admit that you were wrong." (Oh dear God that sounds so melodramatic doesn't it? Who inserts such phrases into debates?)
-
IMO, both sometimes post readable stuff.
Richard is braindead and his spelling and syntax is hopeless. That said, his twin retard Duke, has a reasonable grasp of the English language and its intricacies. I am not above the odd mistake in grammar or spelling or syntax but ...well you "shurely have scene Ricktards posts".
I already know what you think. We'll just have to disagree.
No really interesting or unique, is it? The same could be said about any number of other members here.
Not really. I think that these two are similar and share many similar qualities to their retarded twin cousins, General Razorbeard and Sol. I rate them more highly than the latter, but the similarities are there. The Narcissism, inability to give a shit about others and so on. Differences too of course. I personally think if I had to rate them I would rate Duke above Richard then above Razorbeard and slightly above Sol.
Trying to infer these guys (or any of them) are like the rest of us........... :O_o:
I didn't say "the rest of us", now did I? I said "any number of other members here"
I maintain that quite a few others have held these same high standards you now hold as fairly unique to Richard, Duke, and maybe one or two others. In *my* opinion, just as Richard, in *your* opinion, is braindead (btw, that's a fine assumption to boost your argument with; what is this, a playground?).
There is an echo in here. :laugh:
Yup they have got to be related somewhere along the line.
He also said that he'd do it until Richard was sinbinned, adding that if he was, he would come back under a different name and keep on spamming the board.
Yup sounds like a his heart was in the right place and it could not be aimed at a nicer bloke..
The only reason he chose this course of action Odeon....is because the guy is a hopeless fucking retard. :D
There is an ignore button.
Yes you know what I am going to say here. (The other point of course is when you log on you are not pre-warned with this knowledge that all the dick and boob shots are not contained and any thread you enter with Richard having ever posted is liable to get a small dick in your face as it were. THEN after you cop this, you can put it on ignore ,if you think that other members ought to dick-tate your actions)
Or boobs, or nekkid pics, or just about anything a member might choose to post outside the fora more suited for the adult content. The difference is that blocking avatars by ignoring that member (pun intended) is trivial while blocking misplaced nudes is not.
Nudes, big fucking peters avatars, etc, are a nuisance but they can be blocked. Flooding cannot. Do you wish to take action against every occurrence of adult content outside their dedicated fora? Should we sinbin or blabberize the fuckers responsible? What are you saying?
I know what you'll say--the ignore button can be used on Duke, too. Problem is, when you reply to someone, the ignore mod doesn't work. In Richard's case it's no problem because his avatar isn't visible when you quote. In Duke's, however, his spam can still make posting very difficult, especially to someone with a slow connection or old hardware.
See the difference?
Oh hell Odeon, there was always this "difference". Is it one to "hang your hat on"? Really?
This was not about the exact same two people acting same manner deserving the exact same treatment.
This was about the retard twins who act similarly (not without any difference) and with whom one is censored/punished/infracted/whatever and the other isn't.
Are you trying to tell me that you don't see the difference? That one behaviour, while a nuisance, doesn't actually stop anyone from using the board, but another makes it bloody hard?
In fact Richard when I initially responded to you was cheering on Duke's punishment and conversing with you about how his blabberising, and here is me thinking, "Fuck me, that dumb bastard has a lot of nerve passing judgment on Duke after his latest fun and games. What a retard. Why the fuck is Odeon meekly agreeing with him and not saying Richard "Shut the fuck up. You are about half a step from having your balls in a sling here yourself, I would not try for the moral high ground"? Then I realised.
Because again, Richard did not make the board unreadable, he was just being a nuisance. Nobody is sinbinned or blabberized because s/he is aiming for a moral high ground, real or perceived.
He is not sinbinned.
Ah OK my mistake I was sure I saw that on his profile. It may have been General Razorbeard or one of the others. Having said that he was blabberised and so he was punished/infracted/disciplined by Admin. As far as I know there is four punishments by Admin. Warning, blabberising, sinbinning and banning. So in the scheme of things he was punished by Admin and Ricktard had not been for what I consider just as culpable.
I already know you consider it to be so. I don't, and I think there is an important difference.
Again not a difference to hang one's hat on as a sealing argument against.
Really? Are you trying to dictate what arguments I may or may not use here? Man, get used to being disappointed.
???
Who are you talking about? Me? I did NOT try to talk him into staying. If you think I'm wrong, then provide the links that prove me wrong. Or have the guts to admit that you were wrong. I'm pretty sure none of the admins did anything to make him stay.
And again, nobody is blabberized or sinbinned because of some petty accusation made in anger.
Oh indeed you did. He specifically asked to be deleted as he was railing against you and the site in general.
I did not try to make him stay. Show me the post where I tried. I was perfectly fine with deleting him after the mandatory waiting period of one week. He changed his mind before the time was up, just as I thought he would. And just as you and pretty much everybody else thought.
I want my screename deleted in a weeks time after i Log off of here today. Thanks.
I'm going to quote this, just so you know and lock my topic.
I did not systamaticlly put 15 people on my ignore list, thats too much of a hassle. i ignore people right under there screename. I like callaway, but the evidence doesnt lie. I supose there could be a glitch, but that would have to be a majore one
So, in closing if i'm wrong i'll eat my words but something fishy is going on here.
I thought you were leaving?
I still am, unless someone changes my mind. much like congress, i want my record in the statement
and i want this topic locked. dont unlock it again please callaway. since its only going to turn into a fight, or others want to derail it good fucking bye, I made my point and wouldnt do so lightly
Pretty blatant huh? In fact he never actually admitted that he in fact did not want to go and that he was actually wrong about the ignore thing or that the issue was resolved. That much so that he now weeks later revisits this with a callout on Callaway.
He changed his mind and told us so, but afaik, he didn't post it. Which one of the above quotes proves that I tried to make him stay, in your opinion?
You humoured the retard because you did not want him deleted.
???
Wrong. I ignored the whole thing, fully prepared to delete him, but he changed his mind before the week was up.
I still haven't seen the attack on Queen Victoria's daughter. I also haven't seen the post reported by anyone, QV included. If she thinks it is a problem, then an admin should be notified because as I've explained on numerous occasions before, we don't normally moderate anything here but we will investigate and possibly act if a member thinks there is a problem.
We don't always, however. Oh and we also don't let the rest of the membership know about those decisions.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,16033.msg687368.html#msg687368
I hope your daughter dies of a siezure in the bathtub! :evillaugh:
The cock avatar thing was just as easy to ignore the second time as the first, though.
So yup in both instances we have it in our faces and then have to scramble to find the right way to screen this or his avatar. Sorry Odeon, but fuck that. Why ought he dictate the way we can view the board? I actually prefer spam. Besides it is always hindsight stuff. Hit in the face with Richard cock and then know to act and of course prior to this no warning. This is all good fun of course for Richard because by his own admission, he doesn't give a shit.
What would you suggest we do with the other members posting an occasional nude outside the sex fora? Should we start moderating the board? Should we just ignore those because you don't consider the posters to be braindead or retarded? Why are they allowed to dictate the way we can view the board?
If you want some credibility here, speak out against every such occurrence, against every nude, against every image posted by any member, placed outside where you would expect to find it.
See, this is where your logic fails. You are advocating a solution where you treat members differently depending on what you think of them. I'm not sure if this is a conscious strategy on your part or not, but I think it's pretty blatant.
There's been a lot of nudes posted in the wrong fora, some of which were far more in your face than Richard's avatar, but just as in Richard's case, I didn't do anything except avoiding the thread or ignoring the poster. They didn't stop anyone from viewing the thread, they only made it a nuisance.
See above.
And as I said when my daughter was attacked and I was accused of the same shit, only it was about Phlexor (I think): if he thought it was a problem, he should have let me know. I think he said it wasn't.
Vodzy attacking my daughter out of the blue, however, pissed me off sufficiently to act. I said then and I repeat it now, I am *not* paying for the privilege of having some internet tough guy insult my family. It's not going to happen. Not then, not now, not ever. Think it's unfair? Too bad, mate. And it really isn't unfair either, because as I've said before, you only have to let me or another admin know.
We do not automatically moderate anything, however.
You know I don't give that much of a fuck about whether Duke is blabberised or sinbinned or banned or whatever. I also don't much care what does or doesn't happen to Ricktard. Sure as hell will call out bullshit if i see it or if it looks like such to me. I don't do subtle that well and I don't ignore the Elephant in the lounge room and pretend it is not there.
This why and what I called
Pretty much like me, then. Which is why I called you out.
That is the truth and whether Duke deserves a bit of sinbinning is neither here nor there. It just pisses me off having Richard be a dick to no lesser degree and cheer on Duke's sinbinning and/or blabbering whilst everyone has to pander to his unchecked douchebaggery.
I think that is more than honest and I know you like Duke a lot less than Sticky Ricky. I join the dots well enough to see what I consider similar actions getting different treatment, to form an educated guess as to why. I was calling the inconsistency I saw. Nothing big or dramatic. You wanted to put it to callout? I am happy to thrash this out. At the same token, I don't care. You can do or say what you want. Your site.
Ricky can be what he is and be left unchecked by his actions. I am not going to cry into my computer keyboard about it.
But if you want my opinion I will discuss it freely without toning it down or playing it up.
The irony here is that you got the whole thing wrong.
So let me ask you this:
Do you think it's enough for a member to be an "ugly, childish, whiny, arrogant, opinionated, attention whore" to be blabberized or sinbinned? I already know that Richard, for some reason, got under your skin but is it really something to punish him for?
No you got it wrong Odeon.
In trying to ask the question, and making the assumption, you are again trying to dictate the terms of how I will address things, and placing a context or subtext that doesn't exist.
That same argument can be used about you. Aren't you saying that I'm being inconsistent with my actions because I happen to like Richard? That just isn't the case, no matter how you want to make it so by repeating it.
Now did I say that being ugly, childish, whiny, arrogant, opinionated, attention whore was reason enough to punish someone? Really?
No serious Odeon. Give it a shot. Tell me where I have alluded to this. No vague assertions but something concrete. I have actually addressed points that have had to do with his actions and not his general personality.
This is not what you are stating here. So show me and we can discuss this ....or YOU can "provide the links that prove me wrong. Or have the guts to admit that you were wrong." (Oh dear God that sounds so melodramatic doesn't it? Who inserts such phrases into debates?)
I think I did, but in spite of not providing links or any proof, I'm still waiting.
IMO, your calling Richard braindead, retard, etc, in your posts, in this context, the one where we discuss Duke's punishment and where you compare the two, would imply that being a retard, ugly, etc, is enough. I'm happy to be wrong here, but if that's the case then what ARE you saying? And besides, I asked a question (see your own quote, above).
What worries me is this:
It just pisses me off having Richard be a dick to no lesser degree and cheer on Duke's sinbinning and/or blabbering whilst everyone has to pander to his unchecked douchebaggery.
I get it. You don't like the guy and you are pissed because he is cheering when Duke gets punished for flooding the board. Yes, I didn't like it either, but no matter how much a dick he was when doing it, he wasn't flooding the board.
-
Then I apologise. I thought you were implying things. My bad. :-[
No problem. Sometimes I put things the wrong way. Sir Les' main complaint here seems to be some sort of inconsistency on your part, when I've yet to see it. You've always been pretty clear, in you will respond however you wish with people who direct their shit slinging at you personally, and when you directly ask a member to stop a behavior, they should do it. Your reactions are never anything vengeful or harmful even though you could. Of course, like that quote from the previous page, you do sometimes soften your statements by letting the membership know how administrators will not automatically moderate the same situations for others, but are always available to receive complaints. That might be the only thing I would snipe at because I think that type of member complaint isn't likely to happen, though there may be some who whish they had their own blabberizer button. I think Sir Les knows as well as I, richard would have faced consequences if he had made his statements to you, so no real inconsistency at all.
-
I already know what you think. We'll just have to disagree.
Yup, I am cool with agreeing to disagree
I didn't say "the rest of us", now did I? I said "any number of other members here"
I maintain that quite a few others have held these same high standards you now hold as fairly unique to Richard, Duke, and maybe one or two others. In *my* opinion, just as Richard, in *your* opinion, is braindead (btw, that's a fine assumption to boost your argument with; what is this, a playground?).
No you didn't. I just wanted to make sure I understood you more clearly. :)
Playground? Well I2 is fun. :laugh:
Nah. I could have searched for a better description admittedly but I think as a shorthand descriptor it does OK.
Or boobs, or nekkid pics, or just about anything a member might choose to post outside the fora more suited for the adult content. The difference is that blocking avatars by ignoring that member (pun intended) is trivial while blocking misplaced nudes is not.
Nudes, big fucking peters avatars, etc, are a nuisance but they can be blocked. Flooding cannot. Do you wish to take action against every occurrence of adult content outside their dedicated fora? Should we sinbin or blabberize the fuckers responsible? What are you saying?
What I am saying is that the actions of Duke and Richard in my estimation are as close to the same thing and that the irritation factor of their behaviour and the impact on members is similar and of similar consequence.
It is also not in isolation of one incidence nor even in isolation to other crappy behaviour towards members about their kids or their parenting that he has toyed with or what not.
Jumping on people against every occurrence? Nah. I think I2 would be fine against the occasional occurrence and I don't actually remember anyone up in arms about that. Can you? (You have been here much longer than I. Maybe you can recall a time).
Are you trying to tell me that you don't see the difference? That one behaviour, while a nuisance, doesn't actually stop anyone from using the board, but another makes it bloody hard?
You of course remember when he initially changed his avatar that everyone was scrambling and did not know how to ignore or block or whatever and was caught flatfooted. People were speaking in terms of not risking exposure of Richard's cock on their computer and how to minimise the impact and did not know how to effectively block/ignore/whatever whilst no ruining their experience of the board. Others rallied as to how to get him to stop and pleading with him to stop, saying that ignoring was not a solution, others telling how to block the avatar alone and others saying that was no good....
As far as an argument for him not stopping people as to making it bloody hard I think the difference between the two is marginal at best. I have no idea whether anyone did stop using the board on the basis of this or whether others held off and got the solution from others that fitted them or whether they logged off and checked back t a later stage in hope that Ricktard decided to change it back.
As I say the difference is that bloody marginal as to basically in my view be akin to the same.
Because again, Richard did not make the board unreadable, he was just being a nuisance.
Please see above
Nobody is sinbinned or blabberized because s/he is aiming for a moral high ground, real or perceived.
Nope. I know this. I would be permanently blabberised because I am a grumpy, arrogant, opinionated old man :laugh:
However, again I don't think he JUST took a moral high ground on this and I think I have explained this well enough
I already know you consider it to be so. I don't, and I think there is an important difference.
Again agree to disagree on this point
Really? Are you trying to dictate what arguments I may or may not use here? Man, get used to being disappointed.
Hell no. Use whatever arguments you like. In fact you could say "My board, my rules, my decisions. Piss off Les"
Does you a lot of credit that you don't.
That said is my opinion is that the argument is not a strong one on that particular point and thus "not one to hang your hat on as a sealer argument"
I did not try to make him stay. Show me the post where I tried. I was perfectly fine with deleting him after the mandatory waiting period of one week. He changed his mind before the time was up, just as I thought he would. And just as you and pretty much everybody else thought.
Of course we had not seen him change his mind. We saw him continuing to post like he had not petulantly demanded deletion and over pretty "moral grounds". Listed below is "I still am, unless someone changes my mind. much like congress, i want my record in the statement". So again adding two and two together. He is (was) going to leave because of his moral stance on Admin abuse and his concerns for private personal information with incompetent admin/pranking admin/untrustworthy admin/lying admin/unstable board (or what the fuck else he was on about). He is to leave UNLESS someone changes his mind. He obviously did not get the answers to change his opinion on board security or Callaway for that matter (He would not do a callout on that). Admin did not delete him as he requested and he continued merrily on his way.
I had seen you also reply the following
If he doesn't change his mind, we will delete his account. He asked us to do it.
I really wish you wouldn't, but I know I know. You have to, right?
As long as we agree to deleting accounts when people ask us to, yes.
I did not systamaticlly put 15 people on my ignore list, thats too much of a hassle. i ignore people right under there screename. I like callaway, but the evidence doesnt lie. I supose there could be a glitch, but that would have to be a majore one
So, in closing if i'm wrong i'll eat my words but something fishy is going on here.
Richard, that would be an idiotic prank. There are far funnier ways to prank a member if one really wants to abuse the admin powers.
The real point here, though, is that WE DIDN'T DO IT.
So the above says to me that you are replying to rage that it is unfortunate that you have to delete him. (Am I right in assuming the "yes" at the end of this sentence is in response to both you "wishing you would not" and "you having to"? That is certainly my reading). Days later after the deletion request is in you are pandering to the guy again by stating you did not do anything.
Hell he wants gone, calls Admin liars, asks for the unprovable as much as he is doing in the latest callout thread against Callaway and yes I call this explaining yourself again as pandering to him to induce him to stay. It is what he wants.
But maybe because I doesn't see what is exchanged privately and I don't know other's mindsets, it is possible that Richard was having a lend of you and wanted attention and had no real problem but wanted to upset the apple cart a little. Maybe he figured on the time between the request for deletion, and the actual deletion happening, that he was fixing to save face on board by not admitting his, "Fix/explain this or I will leave" moral stance was unresolved. Maybe he wanted to back down without looking publicly like he had backed down from the "or I will leave bit". Maybe his "unless someone changes my mind", again, was not a requirement in actuality. Maybe your "yes" in the question to Rage was not in respect to it being a shame but just in relation to the deletion itself. Maybe your "We didn't do it" proclamation was not as my reading inferred a last ditch effort to make him see reason and stay but rather an exasperated vent.
Just did not stack up that way in my reading especially in respect to the conviction of his want to leave and your agreeing to delete him ...and then him simply seeming to be here and the issues obviously unresolved.
He changed his mind and told us so, but afaik, he didn't post it. Which one of the above quotes proves that I tried to make him stay, in your opinion?
Oh I see I need proof? No I don't. I need a decent reason to see a favouritism or a discrepancy of treatment. As of when or why do I need specific proof over this. You are trying to dictate the terms again.
???
Wrong. I ignored the whole thing, fully prepared to delete him, but he changed his mind before the week was up.
OK. Did not look that way to me, but sure. Look to me like you were not just ignoring it.
wrong. i'm going to say this one time only, for the sake of me not having to explain myself over and over again.
I dont want to be around people that are biased twords one set of parts, unfair, close minded, have flock mentality, jelouse of what I have, dont know a good thing when they see it, (there kids are in the room or boss is looking over there shoulders)
I would like to be freinds with people that are open minded, fair, unbiased, know a good thing when they see it, arent jelouse of what i have, and dont run off a cliff with the rest of the lemars
So if i dont hit you back now you know.
I still don't understand your point. Maybe you wouldn't care if kids or the boss happen to see one part or the other, but some of us do. It has *nothing* to do with bias, envy, unfairness, etc, and all to do with common sense. It's fairly easy to stay clear of the more explicit threads when you know that someone could watch but a lot harder to avoid an avatar.
And that goes for both sets of private parts. There's a reason they are called private, you know.
If that makes me close-minded in your book, then so be it. I can live with that.
You also said you found it curious elsewhere.
I thought that and the protestation mentioned showed a little more than simply ignoring it. Again my reading and that is what it did and does look like, to me.
What would you suggest we do with the other members posting an occasional nude outside the sex fora? Should we start moderating the board? Should we just ignore those because you don't consider the posters to be braindead or retarded? Why are they allowed to dictate the way we can view the board?
If you want some credibility here, speak out against every such occurrence, against every nude, against every image posted by any member, placed outside where you would expect to find it.
See, this is where your logic fails. You are advocating a solution where you treat members differently depending on what you think of them. I'm not sure if this is a conscious strategy on your part or not, but I think it's pretty blatant.
There's been a lot of nudes posted in the wrong fora, some of which were far more in your face than Richard's avatar, but just as in Richard's case, I didn't do anything except avoiding the thread or ignoring the poster. They didn't stop anyone from viewing the thread, they only made it a nuisance.
Gee Odeon there is a lot in the above to respond to. :-\
Now how about I attack it in no particular order?
Now I guess firstly whilst being accused I guess of faulty logic my accuser jumps into a slippery slope of showing my to have Richard avatar of him playing with himself as being the same as the occasional nude posted outside of where we would expect it.
OK let's start there and see whether perhaps not consciously I may be an avid closeted anti-porn advocate or whatever it is that you are trying to infer.
I post about 4 posts a day. Richard about 7 posts a day. All averages of course and some days are more or less. We are both active posters. Le's say that an active poster was to post a porn or self porn image or whatever outside the "designated area".
A one off. Meh
How about 10 such images (a days worth of posts?) that is a nusiance and a pain in the arse. Right?
Is that what we are talking about? That would meet your definitions if I read it right.
Is that what Richard did? No it wasn't. How many times was this image duplicated on the board? OK now compare this posting outside of designated areas to spamming porn images on the board.
My contention is that it was not once or twice or ten. Not twenty. Richard has over 11 000 posts. How many times was this image duplicated outside of the designated areas, Odeon? Was it in fact around about 10 000 times give or take?
Now let's have a look at the rest of your argument.
I have to according to your logic speak out about every occurrence of nudes outside the designated areas to have a credible argument? No I don't. That is rather bizarre and perhaps a little insulting to suggest so. If someone was to in the example of doing the 10 posts a day I might say something on a thread on the 5th or 6th or 10th time, "C'mon mate, can't you just post that in the sex forums?"
I think you are intentionally being obtuse and I don't think you believe that I or others would do more. Why was Richard's avatar viewed so strong and so negatively? 10 000+ images throughout the board.
Clear difference.
Were anyone else to do this you can beat your arse I would respond to this.
If Callaway were to decide that her or another vagina as an avatar was pretty good value I would be just as disagreeable and similarly would not respect her brushing it off (not saying she would because she is a respectful person and has a brain in her head.) Were Parts to say an avatar of someone's arsehole were fair game I would call that out too.
Now how about you take what you know of me (and you have known me a while) have a think and denounce that I would. Or perhaps drop the inference that the only reason I (and others if you like) had an issue was because it was Richard.
I still don't understand your point. Maybe you wouldn't care if kids or the boss happen to see one part or the other, but some of us do. It has *nothing* to do with bias, envy, unfairness, etc, and all to do with common sense. It's fairly easy to stay clear of the more explicit threads when you know that someone could watch but a lot harder to avoid an avatar.
And that goes for both sets of private parts. There's a reason they are called private, you know.
If that makes me close-minded in your book, then so be it. I can live with that.
Oh yeah I am guessing from this quote you know EXACTLY what I am talking about here
Pretty much like me, then. Which is why I called you out.
Fair call
That same argument can be used about you. Aren't you saying that I'm being inconsistent with my actions because I happen to like Richard? That just isn't the case, no matter how you want to make it so by repeating it.
Hell Odeon, it may or may not be. I am by my nature reactive. It is not to say that I am emotionally invested. I see and agree and post as such. I disagree and I post as such. I have no problem in backing myself up or explaining myself nor apologising if i consider myself wrong. I don't see a personal investment with any of this.
I don't "want to make it so". I "see" that this was/is how it looks like to me and I state it. No need to beat around the bush or subtle context here. Straight up and honest. Whether you may have me this way or not.
I think I did, but in spite of not providing links or any proof, I'm still waiting.
IMO, your calling Richard braindead, retard, etc, in your posts, in this context, the one where we discuss Duke's punishment and where you compare the two, would imply that being a retard, ugly, etc, is enough. I'm happy to be wrong here, but if that's the case then what ARE you saying? And besides, I asked a question (see your own quote, above).
What worries me is this:
It just pisses me off having Richard be a dick to no lesser degree and cheer on Duke's sinbinning and/or blabbering whilst everyone has to pander to his unchecked douchebaggery.
I get it. You don't like the guy and you are pissed because he is cheering when Duke gets punished for flooding the board. Yes, I didn't like it either, but no matter how much a dick he was when doing it, he wasn't flooding the board.
Yes the Douchebaggery in question was the issue not the being Richard. Personality grating, but no real issue. Behaviour? Different story.
The reason that I have not been on Duke's case lately, and let's not forget I have in the past, is simply that Duke has not been (OK until the spam episode that I missed completely) been more than he is personality wise. Richard has been being a douchebag. A completely unrepentant forum fucking douchebag. Effectively posting 10 000 images throughout the forum of himself wanking. But it is within the rules you say and no biggie and far different from Duke's spam project (that he responded to as a result of the non-censoring of Richard).
Now you can say I am unreasonable or over sensitive or picking on Richard or a good many other things, but as above I simply contest this.
I think that I have very valid reasons to assert what I have and think that my reasoning and my logic is sound and fine.
-
Would you like some lotion sir, for that rough dry itchy sensative skin?
-
fucking hell I can't read all this
-
I think this tread should be about airplanes! :2thumbsup:
Here's a Found Aircraft Bush Hawk. 8)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2348/2203373498_444933bc32.jpg)
-
I already know what you think. We'll just have to disagree.
Yup, I am cool with agreeing to disagree
me too.
I didn't say "the rest of us", now did I? I said "any number of other members here"
I maintain that quite a few others have held these same high standards you now hold as fairly unique to Richard, Duke, and maybe one or two others. In *my* opinion, just as Richard, in *your* opinion, is braindead (btw, that's a fine assumption to boost your argument with; what is this, a playground?).
No you didn't. I just wanted to make sure I understood you more clearly. :)
Fair enough.
Playground? Well I2 is fun. :laugh:
Nah. I could have searched for a better description admittedly but I think as a shorthand descriptor it does OK.
Or boobs, or nekkid pics, or just about anything a member might choose to post outside the fora more suited for the adult content. The difference is that blocking avatars by ignoring that member (pun intended) is trivial while blocking misplaced nudes is not.
Nudes, big fucking peters avatars, etc, are a nuisance but they can be blocked. Flooding cannot. Do you wish to take action against every occurrence of adult content outside their dedicated fora? Should we sinbin or blabberize the fuckers responsible? What are you saying?
What I am saying is that the actions of Duke and Richard in my estimation are as close to the same thing and that the irritation factor of their behaviour and the impact on members is similar and of similar consequence.
It is also not in isolation of one incidence nor even in isolation to other crappy behaviour towards members about their kids or their parenting that he has toyed with or what not.
The irritation factor is just about the same, yes. I was sufficiently annoyed by Richard's avatar to block him.
However, the avatar did not stop anyone from technically being able to read or reply to the thread. Duke's links were numerous enough to do that. That is the difference. Not the irritation factor, not the annoyance and not the (lack of) maturity in quite a few of their posts.
Now, I can try to explain this differently, a few replies down the road, but will it make you change your mind? I don't think so. I also don't think it actually matters.
Let me ask you a question, in all honesty: do you think we should always blabberize or sinbin a member who by one means or another "floods" the board, including here both the kind you are talking about and the kind I am? Or do you think we shouldn't?
And I'm not trying to provoke you in this instance, I'm simply interested. It hadn't crossed my mind to consider it when the TOS isn't violated or a thread not made unusable. The rest of you might want to reply, but preferably in another thread.
Jumping on people against every occurrence? Nah. I think I2 would be fine against the occasional occurrence and I don't actually remember anyone up in arms about that. Can you? (You have been here much longer than I. Maybe you can recall a time).
A few occasions early on, when Kevv wanted to post nudes.
Are you trying to tell me that you don't see the difference? That one behaviour, while a nuisance, doesn't actually stop anyone from using the board, but another makes it bloody hard?
You of course remember when he initially changed his avatar that everyone was scrambling and did not know how to ignore or block or whatever and was caught flatfooted. People were speaking in terms of not risking exposure of Richard's cock on their computer and how to minimise the impact and did not know how to effectively block/ignore/whatever whilst no ruining their experience of the board. Others rallied as to how to get him to stop and pleading with him to stop, saying that ignoring was not a solution, others telling how to block the avatar alone and others saying that was no good....
As far as an argument for him not stopping people as to making it bloody hard I think the difference between the two is marginal at best. I have no idea whether anyone did stop using the board on the basis of this or whether others held off and got the solution from others that fitted them or whether they logged off and checked back t a later stage in hope that Ricktard decided to change it back.
I don't know either, but I do know that people ignored him.
As I say the difference is that bloody marginal as to basically in my view be akin to the same.
Because again, Richard did not make the board unreadable, he was just being a nuisance.
Please see above
I did. The difference is a technical one. One made threads physically unusable, the other made them a nuisance without ignoring the perpetrator.
Nobody is sinbinned or blabberized because s/he is aiming for a moral high ground, real or perceived.
Nope. I know this. I would be permanently blabberised because I am a grumpy, arrogant, opinionated old man :laugh:
You are no more grumpy than I am. :laugh:
However, again I don't think he JUST took a moral high ground on this and I think I have explained this well enough
I already know you consider it to be so. I don't, and I think there is an important difference.
Again agree to disagree on this point
Really? Are you trying to dictate what arguments I may or may not use here? Man, get used to being disappointed.
Hell no. Use whatever arguments you like. In fact you could say "My board, my rules, my decisions. Piss off Les"
Never crossed my mind. I'm trying to explain my views and my actions, not shove them down your throat.
Does you a lot of credit that you don't.
That said is my opinion is that the argument is not a strong one on that particular point and thus "not one to hang your hat on as a sealer argument"
I did not try to make him stay. Show me the post where I tried. I was perfectly fine with deleting him after the mandatory waiting period of one week. He changed his mind before the time was up, just as I thought he would. And just as you and pretty much everybody else thought.
Of course we had not seen him change his mind. We saw him continuing to post like he had not petulantly demanded deletion and over pretty "moral grounds". Listed below is "I still am, unless someone changes my mind. much like congress, i want my record in the statement". So again adding two and two together. He is (was) going to leave because of his moral stance on Admin abuse and his concerns for private personal information with incompetent admin/pranking admin/untrustworthy admin/lying admin/unstable board (or what the fuck else he was on about). He is to leave UNLESS someone changes his mind. He obviously did not get the answers to change his opinion on board security or Callaway for that matter (He would not do a callout on that). Admin did not delete him as he requested and he continued merrily on his way.
Actually he just changed his mind. He's done it before.
I had seen you also reply the following
If he doesn't change his mind, we will delete his account. He asked us to do it.
I really wish you wouldn't, but I know I know. You have to, right?
As long as we agree to deleting accounts when people ask us to, yes.
I did not systamaticlly put 15 people on my ignore list, thats too much of a hassle. i ignore people right under there screename. I like callaway, but the evidence doesnt lie. I supose there could be a glitch, but that would have to be a majore one
So, in closing if i'm wrong i'll eat my words but something fishy is going on here.
Richard, that would be an idiotic prank. There are far funnier ways to prank a member if one really wants to abuse the admin powers.
The real point here, though, is that WE DIDN'T DO IT.
So the above says to me that you are replying to rage that it is unfortunate that you have to delete him. (Am I right in assuming the "yes" at the end of this sentence is in response to both you "wishing you would not" and "you having to"? That is certainly my reading). Days later after the deletion request is in you are pandering to the guy again by stating you did not do anything.
You misread my response. I simply said that as long as we have that one-week rule, we are bound by it. I was thinking about the technical issues we sometimes have--every time we do delete a member, it messes up a few database tables because SMF isn't all that tidy. I have been thinking about disallowing member deletion and said as much in Site Direction.
As for replying "WE DIDN'T DO IT", well, that was out of anger because Richard wouldn't believe us. It pissed me off.
Hell he wants gone, calls Admin liars, asks for the unprovable as much as he is doing in the latest callout thread against Callaway and yes I call this explaining yourself again as pandering to him to induce him to stay. It is what he wants.
There was no pandering. You are reading things into my posts that aren't there.
But maybe because I doesn't see what is exchanged privately and I don't know other's mindsets, it is possible that Richard was having a lend of you and wanted attention and had no real problem but wanted to upset the apple cart a little. Maybe he figured on the time between the request for deletion, and the actual deletion happening, that he was fixing to save face on board by not admitting his, "Fix/explain this or I will leave" moral stance was unresolved. Maybe he wanted to back down without looking publicly like he had backed down from the "or I will leave bit". Maybe his "unless someone changes my mind", again, was not a requirement in actuality. Maybe your "yes" in the question to Rage was not in respect to it being a shame but just in relation to the deletion itself. Maybe your "We didn't do it" proclamation was not as my reading inferred a last ditch effort to make him see reason and stay but rather an exasperated vent.
It was a vent all right, a pissed off one. I don't particularly like being accused of lying or having my friends being accused of it, and Richard pissed me off.
Just did not stack up that way in my reading especially in respect to the conviction of his want to leave and your agreeing to delete him ...and then him simply seeming to be here and the issues obviously unresolved.
I or another admin would have deleted him but he changed his mind.
He changed his mind and told us so, but afaik, he didn't post it. Which one of the above quotes proves that I tried to make him stay, in your opinion?
Oh I see I need proof? No I don't. I need a decent reason to see a favouritism or a discrepancy of treatment. As of when or why do I need specific proof over this. You are trying to dictate the terms again.
Er, no. I'm trying to make things clear. I'm trying to understand what you ask of me and what you are saying.
???
Wrong. I ignored the whole thing, fully prepared to delete him, but he changed his mind before the week was up.
OK. Did not look that way to me, but sure. Look to me like you were not just ignoring it.
Fair enough. My venting isn't the same as ignoring the issue. But I wasn't trying to change his mind or anything.
wrong. i'm going to say this one time only, for the sake of me not having to explain myself over and over again.
I dont want to be around people that are biased twords one set of parts, unfair, close minded, have flock mentality, jelouse of what I have, dont know a good thing when they see it, (there kids are in the room or boss is looking over there shoulders)
I would like to be freinds with people that are open minded, fair, unbiased, know a good thing when they see it, arent jelouse of what i have, and dont run off a cliff with the rest of the lemars
So if i dont hit you back now you know.
I still don't understand your point. Maybe you wouldn't care if kids or the boss happen to see one part or the other, but some of us do. It has *nothing* to do with bias, envy, unfairness, etc, and all to do with common sense. It's fairly easy to stay clear of the more explicit threads when you know that someone could watch but a lot harder to avoid an avatar.
And that goes for both sets of private parts. There's a reason they are called private, you know.
If that makes me close-minded in your book, then so be it. I can live with that.
You also said you found it curious elsewhere.
I thought that and the protestation mentioned showed a little more than simply ignoring it. Again my reading and that is what it did and does look like, to me.
I think this was before he was leaving, wasn't it? I think he hadn't asked us to delete his account yet, although it was moving towards that. Be that as it may, I was ignoring the threats he implied here, of him leaving. I did not try to make him stay. I tried to explain what bothered me about the avatars.
What would you suggest we do with the other members posting an occasional nude outside the sex fora? Should we start moderating the board? Should we just ignore those because you don't consider the posters to be braindead or retarded? Why are they allowed to dictate the way we can view the board?
If you want some credibility here, speak out against every such occurrence, against every nude, against every image posted by any member, placed outside where you would expect to find it.
See, this is where your logic fails. You are advocating a solution where you treat members differently depending on what you think of them. I'm not sure if this is a conscious strategy on your part or not, but I think it's pretty blatant.
There's been a lot of nudes posted in the wrong fora, some of which were far more in your face than Richard's avatar, but just as in Richard's case, I didn't do anything except avoiding the thread or ignoring the poster. They didn't stop anyone from viewing the thread, they only made it a nuisance.
Gee Odeon there is a lot in the above to respond to. :-\
Now how about I attack it in no particular order?
Now I guess firstly whilst being accused I guess of faulty logic my accuser jumps into a slippery slope of showing my to have Richard avatar of him playing with himself as being the same as the occasional nude posted outside of where we would expect it.
OK let's start there and see whether perhaps not consciously I may be an avid closeted anti-porn advocate or whatever it is that you are trying to infer.
I'm not trying to infer anything, I'm highlighting what I see as an inconsistency on your part.
I post about 4 posts a day. Richard about 7 posts a day. All averages of course and some days are more or less. We are both active posters. Le's say that an active poster was to post a porn or self porn image or whatever outside the "designated area".
A one off. Meh
How about 10 such images (a days worth of posts?) that is a nusiance and a pain in the arse. Right?
Is that what we are talking about? That would meet your definitions if I read it right.
No, you are still missing my point. My "definition" concerns when the images, whatever they may be, slow down the board to such a degree that people with slow connections can no longer read the thread, NOT if somebody posts nudes. It's a technical concern and a free speech concern; the perpetrator is saying that he is doing this so that it won't be technically possible for you to read the flooded thread.
If that ten nuisances rule was true, then Lit would have been guilty a hundred times over. And a couple of other posters who I remember posting gay porn to piss someone off (can't be arsed to look up those atm, sorry). But they weren't blabberized or sinbinned, even though I was a lot more pissed off than in the case of our friend Duke. They made the threads a nuisance and a problem to read, but they didn't technically stop anyone from anything.
Is that what Richard did? No it wasn't. How many times was this image duplicated on the board? OK now compare this posting outside of designated areas to spamming porn images on the board.
My contention is that it was not once or twice or ten. Not twenty. Richard has over 11 000 posts. How many times was this image duplicated outside of the designated areas, Odeon? Was it in fact around about 10 000 times give or take?
But to be able to read and post in *any* thread where he had posted was only a matter of ignoring the guy. No such luck with Duke.
I don't agree with you at all. I see the point you are trying to make but I disagree with that point strongly because of the reasons I've outlined in this post and in the previous ones, but either you haven't understood mine or you are simply too stubborn to admit that you do see the difference.
Well, that or you just don't see the words "unusable" or "nuisance" in the same way as I do. :P
Now let's have a look at the rest of your argument.
I have to according to your logic speak out about every occurrence of nudes outside the designated areas to have a credible argument? No I don't. That is rather bizarre and perhaps a little insulting to suggest so. If someone was to in the example of doing the 10 posts a day I might say something on a thread on the 5th or 6th or 10th time, "C'mon mate, can't you just post that in the sex forums?"
I think you are intentionally being obtuse and I don't think you believe that I or others would do more. Why was Richard's avatar viewed so strong and so negatively? 10 000+ images throughout the board.
Clear difference.
None. While a nuisance, avatars are easy to block and they don't stop anyone from reading or replying, just as those select few nudes posted in the wrong places do not stop anyone. They just make it a risk and a nuisance to read where others can see what's on your screen.
Here you are reacting only against one kind of nuisance, not the other.
Were anyone else to do this you can beat your arse I would respond to this.
If Callaway were to decide that her or another vagina as an avatar was pretty good value I would be just as disagreeable and similarly would not respect her brushing it off (not saying she would because she is a respectful person and has a brain in her head.) Were Parts to say an avatar of someone's arsehole were fair game I would call that out too.
Fair enough, and I would agree. Where we would differ is in what actions we might consider. Me, I'd just ignore them.
Now how about you take what you know of me (and you have known me a while) have a think and denounce that I would. Or perhaps drop the inference that the only reason I (and others if you like) had an issue was because it was Richard.
OK--you are right there. That is an inference I shouldn't have made.
I still don't understand your point. Maybe you wouldn't care if kids or the boss happen to see one part or the other, but some of us do. It has *nothing* to do with bias, envy, unfairness, etc, and all to do with common sense. It's fairly easy to stay clear of the more explicit threads when you know that someone could watch but a lot harder to avoid an avatar.
And that goes for both sets of private parts. There's a reason they are called private, you know.
If that makes me close-minded in your book, then so be it. I can live with that.
Oh yeah I am guessing from this quote you know EXACTLY what I am talking about here
Pretty much like me, then. Which is why I called you out.
Fair call
That same argument can be used about you. Aren't you saying that I'm being inconsistent with my actions because I happen to like Richard? That just isn't the case, no matter how you want to make it so by repeating it.
Hell Odeon, it may or may not be. I am by my nature reactive. It is not to say that I am emotionally invested. I see and agree and post as such. I disagree and I post as such. I have no problem in backing myself up or explaining myself nor apologising if i consider myself wrong. I don't see a personal investment with any of this.
And neither do I, beyond the fact that my RSI is acting up from the excessive editing of this post. :P
I don't "want to make it so". I "see" that this was/is how it looks like to me and I state it. No need to beat around the bush or subtle context here. Straight up and honest. Whether you may have me this way or not.
I think I did, but in spite of not providing links or any proof, I'm still waiting.
IMO, your calling Richard braindead, retard, etc, in your posts, in this context, the one where we discuss Duke's punishment and where you compare the two, would imply that being a retard, ugly, etc, is enough. I'm happy to be wrong here, but if that's the case then what ARE you saying? And besides, I asked a question (see your own quote, above).
What worries me is this:
It just pisses me off having Richard be a dick to no lesser degree and cheer on Duke's sinbinning and/or blabbering whilst everyone has to pander to his unchecked douchebaggery.
I get it. You don't like the guy and you are pissed because he is cheering when Duke gets punished for flooding the board. Yes, I didn't like it either, but no matter how much a dick he was when doing it, he wasn't flooding the board.
Yes the Douchebaggery in question was the issue not the being Richard. Personality grating, but no real issue. Behaviour? Different story.
The reason that I have not been on Duke's case lately, and let's not forget I have in the past, is simply that Duke has not been (OK until the spam episode that I missed completely) been more than he is personality wise. Richard has been being a douchebag. A completely unrepentant forum fucking douchebag. Effectively posting 10 000 images throughout the forum of himself wanking. But it is within the rules you say and no biggie and far different from Duke's spam project (that he responded to as a result of the non-censoring of Richard).
Not sure how it began, tbh.
Now you can say I am unreasonable or over sensitive or picking on Richard or a good many other things, but as above I simply contest this.
I think that I have very valid reasons to assert what I have and think that my reasoning and my logic is sound and fine.
Having listened, I agree. I think your logic is sound, except in places mostly concerning those misplaced nudes. No biggie and I'm not that bothered tbh.
I'm simply saying that I believe my logic to be equally sound but different from yours. That is to say, my grounds for action are different from yours. I do think that about the only time we need to act, outside anything concerning the TOS, is when people try to restrict the freedoms of others. And that is what, in my view, happened when Duke flooded Richard's threads.
Should we go for another round before judgement?
-
fucking hell I can't read all this
But we are making such good points. :zoinks:
-
who is this guy? Fussing over a damn penis picture. Op, i forgot 10,000 small inch by may 2 inches across peter pictures!
gotta think of those guests you know who dont know how to ignore people! i mean really. this is a fucking joke now
:LMAO:
pentagrams bullshit made my internet slow the fuck down when I wanted to view the topic. I purely think you have a score to settle with me because I get on your nerves like, shot nerves. or something, Odeon already explained it you fat clown. So get over it already. jesus fucking christ :hahaha:
-
OK how about we just summarise our points and our conceded points and stick a fork in this one. No more quotes. One more introduced post and I think my eyes will bleed.
OK here is me.
Firstly you are right that this technicality that defines in your view Richard's treatment as different from Duke's is still in my view a minor one and not worth deserving of different treatment. It is like trying to tell me that there is huge difference between horses and zebras. Sorry but to me one looks very much like the other and the differences are not that great. I understand you see the difference and it being a big enough one. Just I don't.
Secondly you say Oh people just ignored him. That is not "quite" right. Some people who knew what they were doing went straight to the ignoring option of their choice. Many fumbled. For some the adblock thing was effective and for others the ignore option and others a different option. Some found problems with different options and discussed it in the forums. He was effectively ruining their interaction on the board every bit as much as Duke's spamming. Some did not bother with ignoring. Some because they had a personal issue against ignoring people and too stubborn to recant this position (OK yes there was only likely one person here fitting that description and I think we all know who that is) and others because they were either OK with it or rather than go to the bother and inconveniences the different options of ignore pose, chose to grit their teeth and hope that he changed it back to his ugly mug.
There was more than just a easy ignore things are solved.
Thirdly Richard has been pretty quick at saying crappy things about kids of members here. Particularly QV's child. (Oh he said he hopes mine die from a kangaroo in this thread. No worse really than Bint's pedophilia incest fantasies she had about me and my kids a while ago. I just point the comment out as another easy to reference example) and a few other places has taken shots. He then tells people to lighten up and that it was of no consequence. In fact that tends to be his default. No accountability, respect or responsibility and at every point and turn fault lies with others.
Fourthly it is not that I particularly dislike Richard that I bring this to light. It is his actions and behaviours that bring it to bear. Now the problem in showing this is that firstly, if he is the type of personality that generally grates on me I will react and as such it may or may not show me as "having a problem with that person. Therefore biased against them. The other point too is the type of crappy actions they do is more likely if they have a crappy underlying personality to start with. I could we imagine Sol, Ahayes, General Razordbeard and a host of others do essentially the same or worse than Rixhard or Duke but would have a very hard time imagining Parts or Callaway doing so. So therefore the "You are just saying this because you don't like" them is a seductive argument, but just not true.
Fifthly I think that I DID misread your posts to him and the context of it as different to what they were meant by you to express. Things happen in a fluid state and when there are context and subtext to factor, sometimes I get it wrong. It did not really bother me either way, whether you wanted him to stay or not or induced him to change his mind (overtly or not). Doesn't really change what he did or what he is like as a person or what you are like or what this board is like...BUT I do think it needs to be said that in this I got the wrong end of the stick and I apologise for that.
To be perfectly honest Odeon I don't think that we are going to see eye to eye over this point. I see what you are saying but I don't agree with it. You think the same of me and God knows we have tried to sway the other.
Thanks Odeon this was kind of interesting
-
who is this guy? Fussing over a damn penis picture. Op, i forgot 10,000 small inch by may 2 inches across peter pictures!
Pictures of a 2 inch peter? Richard what are you trying to tell us about your manhood? Trick photography?
-
I bother you. admit it, I mean you write a goddamn novel about everything you think that I do is wrong.
Didnt your mother ever tell you, that some people in life you just wont like? Grow up sensative susan. :wanker:
-
I bother you. admit it, I mean you write a goddamn novel about everything you think that I do is wrong.
Didnt your mother ever tell you, that some people in life you just wont like? Grow up sensative susan. :wanker:
That is the funny thing bout you Richard (well one of the many). You kind of structure your thoughts around what you want to believe not what is rational, reasonable or logical. These things are or no consequence to your retarded mindset.
Let's look at the reasons for posting the dick shots originally. Remember all that bullshit about us being two faced hypocrites over some ideology of us liking porn outside the designated zones and liking other people's avatar with porn in them.
It was making your point after the event. Well would have, until you were asked how these other people posting porn in avatars were and you had no answers but by then your mind had moved on to other absurdity.
Truth, was of no consequence. Reason was the first causality and logic never got a look in.
This is why I like writing about you. You are very interesting, but not for reasons that you believe. You also work in well with my reactive nature. It does me good that someone with such screwy values and idiocy is posting here. I can take out all my ill will on you and leave the others by and large unscathed. I like the others too, mostly.
So do you bother me and if you did does that mean I am oversensitive and in the event that this too were true do I need to grow up and stop being oversensitive?
No you don't bother me Richard. I prefer that you or someone like you were here to fill that aforementioned position. I am very blessed that Duke or General Razordbeard or a couple of others are around, but you are certainly more active than they so there is a benefit to you being around.
So no, once more your attempt at drawing a logical conclusion have been completely slaughtered before they were conceived (much like you ought to have been). It is not any real surprise though.
But you were saying something about Mothers and what they teach. You make a start on this. It should be a very short presentation. By the way how is she going? :hahaha:
Or do you think the introducing Mother's into conversation and/or intruding into this callout not so warranted. OK. Then piss off Richard :autism:
-
OK, my views...
Actually, I see that you already know what they are so I don't see the point of repeating them. Thanks for listening--it's clear you did, and I hope I've managed to listen to your arguments as well.
I do apologise for implying that your views were about Richard specifically. Clearly they are not, and you have perfectly valid points. There's a lot to think about. Were Duke to flood the board again, I would probably act differently but I would still stop him because I think the issue of a member being allowed to restrict the freedoms of others is an important one.
That said, I can see your side of things and I don't see a need to continue this. I think we should all discuss the points you brought up, however. I do have a comment regarding guests and their inability to block avatars:
While I'd very much like to see the (non-bot) guests joining, we can never design a board around their needs and sensitivities. If an avatar or an image bothers them, then too bad. They don't have a say.
Here's what I need to say about Richard specifically: I think he's behaving like a cunt, especially re what he said about QV's daughter. It's about as low as a person can get and he should apologise, unconditionally. Other people's kids should be left out of all this, always.
Yes, Richard, I think everybody knows that you aren't threatening QV's daughter, but that's not the point and never was. Just because you are allowed to say something doesn't mean you should and in this case you are a fucking disgrace. Apologise if you think that other people's respect means anything to you. Apologise if you think that other people matter.
-
OK Odeon one final point. No I was going to let this one go but I think it needs saying.
You apologised about me thinking I was bringing up this argument because it was Richard.
No biggie. Not at all. In fact because I react so strongly on Richard it makes sense that you would think that, and does credit that you mention it here. I would much rather have the cards on the table and defend or explain myself, than have things thought about me uncontested.
I kinda like honest. I appreciate you being so in this thread.
I see it in exactly the same way, as my believing you were pandering to Richard.
It did look that way to me and for reasons that seemed sound, but on explaining your position I have learned differently. No biggie there either. Mistakes happen and I have learned something from it.
Thanks for the opportunity of this callout.
-
Nobody is pandering to me. Infact, i get under your skin. thats why your so botherd to write lengthy synopsis of what you think is really going on. Wich is a bunch of bullshit
-
Here's what I need to say about Richard specifically: I think he's behaving like a cunt, especially re what he said about QV's daughter. It's about as low as a person can get and he should apologise, unconditionally. Other people's kids should be left out of all this, always.
Yes, Richard, I think everybody knows that you aren't threatening QV's daughter, but that's not the point and never was. Just because you are allowed to say something doesn't mean you should and in this case you are a fucking disgrace. Apologise if you think that other people's respect means anything to you. Apologise if you think that other people matter.
Well thats fine. I wouldnt expect you or anyone to live up to what I think is moral or vice versa
I dont see anything wrong with what i've said unless its against the law or TOS.
-
Nobody is pandering to me.
and that's a good thing!!!
-
Is it really? :zoinks:
-
Here's what I need to say about Richard specifically: I think he's behaving like a cunt, especially re what he said about QV's daughter. It's about as low as a person can get and he should apologise, unconditionally. Other people's kids should be left out of all this, always.
Yes, Richard, I think everybody knows that you aren't threatening QV's daughter, but that's not the point and never was. Just because you are allowed to say something doesn't mean you should and in this case you are a fucking disgrace. Apologise if you think that other people's respect means anything to you. Apologise if you think that other people matter.
Well thats fine. I wouldnt expect you or anyone to live up to what I think is moral or vice versa
I dont see anything wrong with what i've said unless its against the law or TOS.
You are talking about morality while accusing Callaway of tampering with your account, without any sort of evidence to back it up with? When you see nothing wrong with saying what you did about someone who you'd never met?
It's not against the law or the TOS--probably, but I'd welcome someone to prove me wrong--but it's against everything I believe in. Don't you dare talk to me about morality when you lack knowledge of basic ethics.
-
You are talking about morality while accusing Callaway of tampering with your account, without any sort of evidence to back it up with? When you see nothing wrong with saying what you did about someone who you'd never met?
It's not against the law or the TOS--probably, but I'd welcome someone to prove me wrong--but it's against everything I believe in. Don't you dare talk to me about morality when you lack knowledge of basic ethics.
She did tamper with my account. the evidence is starring you right in the face! shes just holds a Higher postion than I do, so you believe her over me. I think if you go back and look at what I've had to say you'd see that there's no way in hell I put myself on ignore.
Going into someones profile and changing it without there permission is ALOT different than saying
"i hope your kid dies" While what I have to say might be offencive, What she did was wrong. and possibly illegal, My profile is my business. If i want someone poking around in there I'll ask them to. It would be like me going to QV's house and asking for her daughter. Do you see the diffrence now?
-
You are talking about morality while accusing Callaway of tampering with your account, without any sort of evidence to back it up with? When you see nothing wrong with saying what you did about someone who you'd never met?
It's not against the law or the TOS--probably, but I'd welcome someone to prove me wrong--but it's against everything I believe in. Don't you dare talk to me about morality when you lack knowledge of basic ethics.
She did tamper with my account. the evidence is starring you right in the face! shes just holds a Higher postion than I do, so you believe her over me. I think if you go back and look at what I've had to say you'd see that there's no way in hell I put myself on ignore.
There is no evidence beyond your imagination, Richard. She had no reason to do it. I believe her over you because her version is credible and there is no evidence whatsoever of her tampering with your account.
Either you did it, with or without meaning to, or there was a glitch. Face it.
Going into someones profile and changing it without there permission is ALOT different than saying
"i hope your kid dies" While what I have to say might be offencive, What she did was wrong. and possibly illegal, My profile is my business. If i want someone poking around in there I'll ask them to. It would be like me going to QV's house and asking for her daughter. Do you see the diffrence now?
What you did is hugely offensive, it is in bad taste and it is uncalled for. Also, it has nothing whatsoever to do with your putting yourself on ignore. Callaway didn't do it. The "evidence" suggests that you did, because in that way there would be no record of it.
Grow a spine and apologise to QV, instead of seeing ghosts where there are none.
-
I have a spine. If i was wrong I'd apologize, Ask spokane FFS!
i personally believe she put me on ignore because she thought I was too fucking dumb to figure it out. Well I did ::)
you can say whatever. I know what i'm looking at, did and did not do
-
Show evidence. ON her side she has mod logs seen by a handful of others. On your side you have a stated fact that you aren't wrong...that is not evidence. Show evidence or admit that you are a dribbling, spineless moron with the IQ of a turnip.
-
You don't have any proof but I have proof of the contrary.
Again, there are far funnier ways of pranking someone if you have admin panel access. The point here is that SHE DIDN'T DO IT!
Apologising to QV is an unrelated matter. What makes you think that you are right in saying what you did about her daughter, or is it that you just can't keep these things apart?
-
You don't have any proof but I have proof of the contrary.
Again, there are far funnier ways of pranking someone if you have admin panel access. The point here is that SHE DIDN'T DO IT!
Show me then. and yes there might be funnier ways to prank someone
but she wanted to be sneaky and not be found out
-
You don't have any proof but I have proof of the contrary.
Again, there are far funnier ways of pranking someone if you have admin panel access. The point here is that SHE DIDN'T DO IT!
Show me then. and yes there might be funnier ways to prank someone
but she wanted to be sneaky and not be found out
There is nothing in the logs, which can be confirmed by the other admins, You won't get access to those logs, though, you will simply have to trust us. Or not. In any case, give the bloody thing a rest.
:deadhorse:
-
you will simply have to trust us. Or not. In any case, give the bloody thing a rest.
:deadhorse:
Thats something the government would say. And while i perosnally like you odeon, and most of the admins on this website I do not trust
-
But this is not the government, it's an internet message board, and me and the other admins spend time here because of the same reasons that everybody else, not because we have an Area 51 hidden away somewhere or it's some mad power trip.
We do know who killed Kennedy but even that is getting old now.
-
You don't have any proof but I have proof of the contrary.
Again, there are far funnier ways of pranking someone if you have admin panel access. The point here is that SHE DIDN'T DO IT!
Show me then. and yes there might be funnier ways to prank someone
but she wanted to be sneaky and not be found out
YOU show us YOUR proof first. She has it (as seen by others).
What have you got, Richard?
What have you got? (Not a hard one to answer)
-
You don't have any proof but I have proof of the contrary.
Again, there are far funnier ways of pranking someone if you have admin panel access. The point here is that SHE DIDN'T DO IT!
Show me then. and yes there might be funnier ways to prank someone
but she wanted to be sneaky and not be found out
If she didn't want to be found out, why would she publicly tease you about it,
which according to you should be airtight evidence TO EVERYONE that she must have done it?
-
I now present the evidence:
;D
I mean, ffs Richard? Seriously?
-
If she didn't want to be found out, why would she publicly tease you about it,
which according to you should be airtight evidence TO EVERYONE that she must have done it?
Oh for fuck sakes! She thought I wouldnt connect the dots!
When i was on ignore, (After she said i was, I was confused so i went and tryed to find out what the heck was going on because I could still see my posts!)
Thats when I found my screename typed in the ignore control panel.
-
:deadhorse:
-
If she didn't want to be found out, why would she publicly tease you about it,
which according to you should be airtight evidence TO EVERYONE that she must have done it?
Oh for fuck sakes! She thought I wouldnt connect the dots!
When i was on ignore, (After she said i was, I was confused so i went and tryed to find out what the heck was going on because I could still see my posts!)
Thats when I found my screename typed in the ignore control panel.
Yes the dots lead to the mod logs and the evidence contained therein and what does the mod logs prove?
Where is your proof? :hahaha:
-
Have you seen the moderator logs?
-
Have you seen the moderator logs?
Each of the moderators have and I don't believe they to a person are part of some big conspiracy. I don't think you are that important to.....well anyone here to form a conspiracy. That is not only a paranoid notion but a retarded notion.
It does exists and has been viewed by others.
Where is YOUR proof. You say they are liars but where is your proof?
You did it yourself. It is obvious. :) :hahaha:
-
Dude, I totally wanted to sharpen my teeth in his one but I don't have time to read a novel. I have a plane to catch.
-
Dude, I totally wanted to sharpen my teeth in his one but I don't have time to read a novel. I have a plane to catch.
It's a very old thread though. Catch your plane! :plane:
-
This was a good callout, though. I remember enjoying it even though it was hard work.
-
Dude, I totally wanted to sharpen my teeth in his one but I don't have time to read a novel. I have a plane to catch.
It was the hardest callout I have been in.
It would be great reading on the plane :lol1:
-
Read this again, just now. Still makes a good read, if I may say so myself.
-
I hope your kids get killed by a kangaroo. :M
Fuck, this is the point I started really pissing myself laughing.
Must finish reading this thread later today. Thanks for the tip ^ Odeon. :)
-
Read this again, just now. Still makes a good read, if I may say so myself.
I like reading it too
-
Read this again, just now. Still makes a good read, if I may say so myself.
I like reading it too
While we're at it, let's bump this one too!! :autism:
-
Read this again, just now. Still makes a good read, if I may say so myself.
I like reading it too
While we're at it, let's bump this one too!! :autism:
Weren't you going to call me out? :-\
-
I asked a question and you didn't reply so now I can't be arsed. :autism:
-
Yeah, that must be it.
-
I asked a question and you didn't reply so now I can't be arsed. :autism:
Pussy :M