INTENSITY²

Start here => What is Intensity²? => Topic started by: midlifeaspie on November 08, 2012, 11:06:15 AM

Title: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 08, 2012, 11:06:15 AM
Y U NO WANNA PLAY?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 08, 2012, 01:15:11 PM
Sort of depressing.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 08, 2012, 02:56:08 PM
That dip correlates with when I left in 08-09  :LOL:

As for the lack of stuff recently, I dunno. For me it's less interesting as there aren't many young people here any more and there isn't much drama
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: MissKitty on November 08, 2012, 03:07:11 PM
Sort of depressing.
:agreed:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 08, 2012, 03:15:16 PM
For me it's less interesting as ... there isn't much drama

I'm trying my very hardest you know  :M
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 08, 2012, 03:43:25 PM
For me it's less interesting as ... there isn't much drama

I'm trying my very hardest you know  :M
:needpics:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 08, 2012, 03:55:20 PM
For me it's less interesting as ... there isn't much drama

I'm trying my very hardest you know  :M
:needpics:

Ricky
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Health/ht_shock_060727_ssv.jpg)

Lestat
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cLyLjc_fAfE/TrANDgecIuI/AAAAAAAAEVk/mujXHm-ZNXc/s1600/heroin1.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 08, 2012, 04:10:57 PM
^

And that's proof of how much of a hard trying tough guy you are? 

 :smarty:



Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 08, 2012, 04:19:27 PM
  I'm just not the type to create drama.  Somebody else needs to step up.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 08, 2012, 04:21:01 PM
I'm not ready for a retrospective yet. The year still has a lot in store. Maybe also here, on I2.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 08, 2012, 04:30:05 PM
And, for now, a forecast.

The bovine will leave I2 this very day.

















But, do not fear, or should that be, do fear?

It's just to get her some time in the hay.
She will return.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 08, 2012, 04:53:00 PM
^

And that's proof of how much of a hard trying tough guy you are? 

 :smarty:

I don't see the correlation between "hard trying" and "tough".  To be honest, that comment was a joke.  I'm not trying particularly hard, I don't really have the time. 
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 08, 2012, 04:54:33 PM
I think that those that will post will post and those that won't, won't.
I think we do OK. A dramafest 24/7 does my head in.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 08, 2012, 05:29:52 PM
^

And that's proof of how much of a hard trying tough guy you are? 

 :smarty:

I don't see the correlation between "hard trying" and "tough".  To be honest, that comment was a joke.  I'm not trying particularly hard, I don't really have the time.

Yes it was (hence the emoticon).
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 08, 2012, 05:37:21 PM
I think it is best not to try.  There will be drama on here again, i feel sure.

Probably just a quiet spell.  I can always make some more posts about mirror sex and submissive sex?  Or about my insatiable desire for a damn good rodgering?    >:D
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 08, 2012, 07:31:39 PM
I think it is best not to try.  There will be drama on here again, i feel sure.

Probably just a quiet spell.  I can always make some more posts about mirror sex and submissive sex?  Or about my insatiable desire for a damn good rodgering?    >:D

Can't speak for anyone else, but that'd work for me
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 08, 2012, 07:43:53 PM
Maybe to get more young people, the old farts have to be less old-farty. Last drama I remember was about people mistaking Odeon for their daddy and getting all anti-authority. It's no fun to hang around a place where it feels like your parents are hanging around too.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 08, 2012, 07:46:49 PM
Maybe to get more young people, the old farts have to be less old-farty. Last drama I remember was about people mistaking Odeon for their daddy and getting all anti-authority. It's no fun to hang around a place where it feels like your parents are hanging around too.

I don't think so but then I don't see anyone here being old forty nor could I see how someone could mistake Odeon forttheir Dad
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 08, 2012, 07:50:41 PM
 :oldman: Maybe that's 'cause you're one of them.  :angel:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: MissKitty on November 08, 2012, 08:12:30 PM
:oldman: Maybe that's 'cause you're one of them.  :angel:
:lol1: I suppose there are a lot of us who are in the parental range
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 08, 2012, 11:49:25 PM
Maybe to get more young people, the old farts have to be less old-farty. Last drama I remember was about people mistaking Odeon for their daddy and getting all anti-authority. It's no fun to hang around a place where it feels like your parents are hanging around too.

In my day you'd not dare to suggest such a thing. How old are you, anyway? :P
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 08, 2012, 11:51:37 PM
To attract the younger population, we could post a couple of pop idol pics. Like that watsisname, Justin Beaver. :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: renaeden on November 09, 2012, 05:09:47 AM
I think we could do with a few more people here. But I don't know how we can get them.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 09, 2012, 05:57:10 AM
I would like to think that the people who come here do so because they can be themselves and don't feel that they necessarily have to be 'fun' or 'old and farty' or whatever.

Tbh i don't care that a lot of you have different opinions than myself.  It's just than mine are always right  >:D
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 09, 2012, 06:27:32 AM
:oldman: Maybe that's 'cause you're one of them.  :angel:

Bullshit! To hell with me being old. I mean We can't bust heads like we used to. But we have our ways. One trick is to tell stories that don't go anywhere. Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for m'shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now where was I... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at the time. You couldn't get white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 09, 2012, 07:50:57 AM
:oldman: Maybe that's 'cause you're one of them.  :angel:

Bullshit! To hell with me being old. I mean We can't bust heads like we used to. But we have our ways. One trick is to tell stories that don't go anywhere. Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for m'shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now where was I... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at the time. You couldn't get white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

 :lies: Damned lies. They weren't bumblebees, they were chickens.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 09, 2012, 07:52:43 AM
I think we could do with a few more people here. But I don't know how we can get them.

Do we actually have to go back to wrongplanet?

Or, there's got to be more autism sites by now. I just don't know where they are.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 09, 2012, 07:55:14 AM
In my day you'd not dare to suggest such a thing. How old are you, anyway? :P

Hm, whose day is it now?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: renaeden on November 09, 2012, 07:59:09 AM
We can't actually post anything about Intensity at WP. It was probably why I got banned before (though I am not now).

There is always AFF or Spectrumites, I am not a member at either of those though.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 09, 2012, 08:14:50 AM
^

And that's proof of how much of a hard trying tough guy you are? 

 :smarty:

I don't see the correlation between "hard trying" and "tough".  To be honest, that comment was a joke.  I'm not trying particularly hard, I don't really have the time.

Sweety, I was joking too, and trying to boost the general postcount, and my postcount in particular.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 09, 2012, 09:55:27 AM
^

And that's proof of how much of a hard trying tough guy you are? 

 :smarty:

I don't see the correlation between "hard trying" and "tough".  To be honest, that comment was a joke.  I'm not trying particularly hard, I don't really have the time.

Sweety, I was joking too, and trying to boost the general postcount, and my postcount in particular.

I know :)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 09, 2012, 09:56:13 AM
We can't actually post anything about Intensity at WP. It was probably why I got banned before (though I am not now).

There is always AFF or Spectrumites, I am not a member at either of those though.

Maybe part of the problem is there are too damn many autistics here.  Can't we attract some general assholes without excuses?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 09, 2012, 11:15:13 AM
I think we could do with a few more people here. But I don't know how we can get them.

We'll kidnap them and force them to post! :arrr:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 09, 2012, 11:16:32 AM
In my day you'd not dare to suggest such a thing. How old are you, anyway? :P

Hm, whose day is it now?

Yours.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 09, 2012, 11:20:33 AM
Fortes este! Fortes Fortuna iuvat!  :viking:

We should start Latin courses here, methinks!  :orly:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 09, 2012, 11:23:56 AM
Fortes este! Fortes Fortuna iuvat!  :viking:

We should start Latin courses here, methinks!  :orly:

Yup, sounds like the boost we need. :P
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 09, 2012, 11:47:49 AM
More young people, more girls, more cats
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 09, 2012, 11:51:22 AM
We can't actually post anything about Intensity at WP. It was probably why I got banned before (though I am not now).

There is always AFF or Spectrumites, I am not a member at either of those though.

Maybe part of the problem is there are too damn many autistics here.  Can't we attract some general assholes without excuses?

I meet enough general assholes, and particular assholes too in "real" life.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 09, 2012, 11:58:18 AM
How about plain old stupid people? :P
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 09, 2012, 12:00:31 PM
How about plain old stupid people? :P

The old ones seem to separate into two groups, the group in beige, utter plainness, and the group getting openly batty. Makes it easier to see who to avoid and who not.  :bat:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 09, 2012, 12:00:33 PM
How about plain old stupid people? :P

We have a couple already, always room for more.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 09, 2012, 12:01:48 PM
If we let in Sol, General Razorbeard and Buttcoffee again, it'd be more interesting  :autism:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 09, 2012, 12:03:49 PM
If we let in Sol, General Razorbeard and Buttcoffee again, it'd be more interesting  :autism:
Well, at least that would fulfil Adam's wish for more younger people.

May make him wish to outgrow youth too. :P
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 09, 2012, 12:05:26 PM
If we let in Sol, General Razorbeard and Buttcoffee again, it'd be more interesting  :autism:

Did we actually ban General Razorbeard for good? I think not.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 09, 2012, 12:07:42 PM
If we let in Sol, General Razorbeard and Buttcoffee again, it'd be more interesting  :autism:
Well, at least that would fulfil Adam's wish for more younger people.

May make him wish to outgrow youth too. :P

Youth is wasted on the young.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 09, 2012, 12:08:37 PM
If we let in Sol, General Razorbeard and Buttcoffee again, it'd be more interesting  :autism:
Well, at least that would fulfil Adam's wish for more younger people.

May make him wish to outgrow youth too. :P

Youth is wasted on the young.

And old age on the old. :P
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 09, 2012, 12:10:08 PM
If we let in Sol, General Razorbeard and Buttcoffee again, it'd be more interesting  :autism:
Well, at least that would fulfil Adam's wish for more younger people.

May make him wish to outgrow youth too. :P

Youth is wasted on the young.

And old age on the old. :P

I don't think old age is much of a commodity.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 09, 2012, 12:14:48 PM
If we let in Sol, General Razorbeard and Buttcoffee again, it'd be more interesting  :autism:

Did we actually ban General Razorbeard for good? I think not.

If you send him a pm, postcount may rise faster than we want to handle.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 09, 2012, 12:15:23 PM
^

That makes me really sound old, doesn't it?  :laugh:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 09, 2012, 12:15:40 PM
If we let in Sol, General Razorbeard and Buttcoffee again, it'd be more interesting  :autism:
Well, at least that would fulfil Adam's wish for more younger people.

May make him wish to outgrow youth too. :P

Youth is wasted on the young.

And old age on the old. :P

I don't think old age is much of a commodity.

Oh, but the acquired cynicism is.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 09, 2012, 12:16:29 PM
If we let in Sol, General Razorbeard and Buttcoffee again, it'd be more interesting  :autism:

Did we actually ban General Razorbeard for good? I think not.

If you send him a pm, postcount may rise faster than we want to handle.

I doubt he reads his PMs. He hasn't been here in a while.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 09, 2012, 12:34:20 PM
Has he been seen anywhere?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 09, 2012, 12:35:45 PM
Not that I know of.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 09, 2012, 12:36:29 PM
Who would have thought that Mario the Plumber could be silent for so long.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 09, 2012, 02:14:53 PM
Has he been seen anywhere?

  Maybe he's still in school, taking classes to learn to Photoshop pictures of himself.  :tard:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 09, 2012, 06:33:42 PM

As for the lack of stuff recently, I dunno. For me it's less interesting as there aren't many young people here any more and there isn't much drama

I feel pretty much the same way.

Over the years, I've grown to like a lot of people here a lot, and because of that, I will always keep returning. Even if it is just to see how everyone's doing.

I tend not to stick around though, because much as I like the membership, the site just doesn't feel at all like the site that I joined and quickly grew to love. It's hard to put my finger on exactly what changed, although I think Pyraxis has made one or two true suggestions.


I think that on a small site like this, it can take only a few people stopping posting, and a few new people posting, to change the overall feel of the place. Its natural that the regular membership will change over time, and the site will change with that.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 09, 2012, 07:56:32 PM
  ^  It would be interesting if Randy returned.  :apondering:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 09, 2012, 08:28:30 PM
  ^  It would be interesting if Randy returned.  :apondering:

That would certainly get me posting again :2thumbsup:

I liked Randy :vibrator:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: MissKitty on November 09, 2012, 09:42:44 PM
  ^  It would be interesting if Randy returned.  :apondering:

That would certainly get me posting again :2thumbsup:

I liked Randy :vibrator:
I missed Randy when I was on hiatus. I don't think he was here when I was?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 09, 2012, 09:49:19 PM
I would like to think that the people who come here do so because they can be themselves and don't feel that they necessarily have to be 'fun' or 'old and farty' or whatever.

Tbh i don't care that a lot of you have different opinions than myself.  It's just than mine are always tight   :glug:

Fixed
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: jman on November 09, 2012, 09:50:16 PM
it's hard to be active on a site when you click on "show unread posts since your last visit" link and she threads like "What's the weather like where you live" and "what are you drinking" gives me the impression that this site is dying.  :thumbdn:

I agree with other posters, this site is boring,  we need some drama around here, bring back assholes like peaguy and randy
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 09, 2012, 09:52:51 PM
Meadow
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 09, 2012, 10:07:36 PM
I agree with jman - the "what is the weather like" thread just sums up the boring shit on here. Obviously its just as much up to me to make it "interesting" as it is to any other member, but no matter how much interesting stuff is posted, the weather/alphabet threads always clog it up. tbh there;s usually only one or two active threads I keep checking back for these days. If that. I mostly come here out of habit really. Doubt many new people would get sucked in the way it is now really
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: MissKitty on November 09, 2012, 10:18:43 PM
It goes in cycles though. It will kick back up a notch again eventually.

Too much drama and I bail ship. I get enough of it in my day to day life :P
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 09, 2012, 10:25:17 PM
  ^  It would be interesting if Randy returned.  :apondering:

That would certainly get me posting again :2thumbsup:

I liked Randy :vibrator:
I missed Randy when I was on hiatus. I don't think he was here when I was?

I was lucky enough to share my first few weeks on the site with Randy. I havent seen him since :(
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: MissKitty on November 09, 2012, 10:28:56 PM
  ^  It would be interesting if Randy returned.  :apondering:

That would certainly get me posting again :2thumbsup:

I liked Randy :vibrator:
I missed Randy when I was on hiatus. I don't think he was here when I was?

I was lucky enough to share my first few weeks on the site with Randy. I havent seen him since :(
okay then I was here because I remember when you joined. I have a tendency to block out people that annoy me. I don't remember much of him :laugh:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 09, 2012, 10:42:17 PM
I agree with jman - the "what is the weather like" thread just sums up the boring shit on here. Obviously its just as much up to me to make it "interesting" as it is to any other member, but no matter how much interesting stuff is posted, the weather/alphabet threads always clog it up. tbh there;s usually only one or two active threads I keep checking back for these days. If that. I mostly come here out of habit really. Doubt many new people would get sucked in the way it is now really
-

That is a very good point. I had never used a forum before I came here, and couldnt have imagined ever doing so. Somehow, this place totally sucked me in. At its worst, I would would refuse real nights out, just to spend time here :o
It's not that the site's bad now at all, and It's better than a lot of forums. It's just that there is nothing left that would suck me in. If I turned up at this site as a noob today, I would be gone in minutes, never to return :'(

Personally, I dont mind the threads like "What's the weather like where you live," and "what are you drinking." Its better that people post in those threads, than dont post at all. The problem is when those are the only threads that are active. I think that if it wasnt for the "boring" threads, this place could become inactive pretty quickly.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 10, 2012, 03:36:28 AM
What *is* the weather like at your end, Butterflies? :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 10, 2012, 04:50:12 AM
And - what is your end like, Butterflies?  :orly:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 10, 2012, 04:58:33 AM
The trouble is i suppose others aren't that interested in what interests me.  And vice versa. 

I like to debate things.  Chew the fat as they say.  I like it when opinions differ.  So, the only thing i will say is there is not enough debate.  A lot of people just post stuff like
 
''10am   fed cat
10.15   stroke dog
then made lunch ''  etc

hardly riveting stuff.

I have been guilty of it too, although i don't bother anymore unless i have done something different or that might interest others.

I don't know if it is anything to do with age.  I don't think it is really because people i have enjoyed debating with in the past have been a variety of ages.

 
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 10, 2012, 12:04:28 PM
Yes, things to debate!

I have made loads of threads on topics/questions to get people debating, so won't make any more as I'd end up repeating old ones lol

But that's what I like the most. Especially if they're are clearly different sides. 

Stuff to debate and fun young people to spam a bit with. That's what would make it more interesting for me
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 10, 2012, 12:05:21 PM
And same as butterflies - I don't mind the weather threads themselves, but when they're all that keeps popping up, they're a problem

I also doubt I'd end up staying if I came here for the first time now
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 10, 2012, 02:15:38 PM
Sometimes telling about the weather is all I am up to. There are even days I force myself to get online, to not get socially completely isolated.

Thank goodness that is not the fact all the time.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 10, 2012, 02:20:11 PM
What *is* the weather like at your end, Butterflies? :zoinks:

Bloody freezing >:(


And - what is your end like, Butterflies?  :orly:

Bloody lovely :-*
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 10, 2012, 02:21:26 PM
I post about important stuff like creating an anarchy society, post in Latin etc, but no one is interested  :thumbdn:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 10, 2012, 02:22:37 PM
Bloody lovely :-*

Culus teus mihi gratus est. Multum bene  8)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 10, 2012, 03:27:41 PM
I'll try and explain things from my POV. A lot of you will disagree, but this is just an opinion.

In the past, when the site was good, some of the younger members, myself included, felt that there was quite a bit of bias towards the older established people on the site. Basically, it felt to me that younger people were very welcome, but the established oldies could do what they wanted with impunity, while the younger members would quickly be torn to pieces for fairly minor stuff.
With Odeon and the mods being of similar ages, and Odeons friends being a similar age, it kinda felt like there was an elite class on this site, with one set of rules applying to the "establishment," and another set of rules for the rest. (BTW. This is not meant as a criticism of the mods, or Odeon, who do a good job.) This was never really a big deal for me in the past, as I felt that I had a good relationship with most members. Also, most importantly, there was always enough young people here that it was easy enough to avoid the worst of the fuddy-duddyness.

Now that there are so few young people who are regularly active here, it feels impossible for me to see this site as anything other than an old-persons site. Yes, I'm deeply fond of a lot of these oldies, and I'd love to hang out on a site with them, but for that to happen, there would need to be a good mix of people.
In the past, I feel that the relative diversity on the site kept it good. We may only have averaged around 25-30 members per day, but in that small group of people, we had a great mix.
In a funny kind of way, I felt that the interaction between the older, more stable members, and the younger, drama producing members, was one of the sites biggest strengths.
We tried to get Zomg running, and IMO, part of the reason it failed was because few of the older sensible people chose to be really active members. It could have worked with only the young, and young at heart, but it would have been an uphill struggle.
This place seems to be having a similar problem, but in reverse. The site appears to be in a self-perpetuating cycle, where the more that it becomes a wrinkle-fest, the less appealing it becomes to younger people.
Also, I don't think it helps that the "establishment" keep getting older :green: When this site was new, the "oldies" like Odeon and Callaway would still have been quite young. 5 years from now, they will be practically elderly :laugh: As the average age of the "establishment" increases, the age gap between them and the new members increases. Not many people under 30 would want to join a site where the "establishment" is so much older than them

OK, I think I'm finished with my stream of consciousness ramble for now, but to sum thing up for those who cant be arsed reading my essay :laugh:, I think that the site needs to make a serious effort to start to engage with the youth.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 10, 2012, 03:29:56 PM
I'm not so young anymore, but I'm a rebel!  :orly: :viking:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 10, 2012, 03:36:11 PM
I'm not so young anymore, but I'm a rebel!  :orly: :viking:

You are young at heart, just like Scrappy. I miss him :(
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 10, 2012, 03:36:57 PM
Et ego :(
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 10, 2012, 04:00:36 PM
I have never had a problem with interacting with younger people.  Both online and IRL i tend to engage with 'the youth'  as easily as i do with my own age.  Then again, i am a frequent dunker in the fountain of youth. :P

There is another side to this, though.  I have come across plenty of young people that just make me yawn,  or i think to myself thank fuck i will never ever have to go for a drink with them.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 10, 2012, 04:47:29 PM
Et ego :(

Dont be sad. Its good to be young at heart :viking:


I have never had a problem with interacting with younger people.  Both online and IRL i tend to engage with 'the youth'  as easily as i do with my own age.  Then again, i am a frequent dunker in the fountain of youth. :P

There is another side to this, though.  I have come across plenty of young people that just make me yawn,  or i think to myself thank fuck i will never ever have to go for a drink with them.

You're not an oldie. You are one of the people who can easily get on with people of all ages here.


I suppose the terms "oldie" and "youngster" are slightly misleading here. There are some people here who are under 30, but are among the dullest people I've ever encountered, and here are plenty of people in their 40s here who I think are great.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 10, 2012, 04:49:05 PM
Ago vobis gratias, Papilliones!  :)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 10, 2012, 04:50:39 PM
Ago vobis gratias, Papilliones!  :)

non sollicitissimum fortis generosum
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 10, 2012, 04:54:49 PM
 :)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 10, 2012, 05:30:35 PM
I feel old, but then, even my kids feel old, now and then.  :hyke: :hyke: :hyke:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TA on November 10, 2012, 06:05:28 PM
One idea is link the site on /b/  :autism:

In all seriousness, i'm more bored than usual, so most of my posts are a result of boredom.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 10, 2012, 06:08:46 PM

I suppose the terms "oldie" and "youngster" are slightly misleading here. There are some people here who are under 30, but are among the dullest people I've ever encountered, and here are plenty of people in their 40s here who I think are great.

:agreed: I guess it means "young at heart"
Although it GENERALLY corresponds to actual ages, I find

Definitely not always tho. And I include bodie in the "young" group
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 10, 2012, 06:40:32 PM

I suppose the terms "oldie" and "youngster" are slightly misleading here. There are some people here who are under 30, but are among the dullest people I've ever encountered, and here are plenty of people in their 40s here who I think are great.

:agreed: I guess it means "young at heart"
Although it GENERALLY corresponds to actual ages, I find

Definitely not always tho. And I include bodie in the "young" group

We oldies want bodie too.  :2thumbsup:
And, we women want bodie too.  :2thumbsup:
Us parents want bodie too.  :2thumbsup:

The girl will get completely worn out, here on I2.

Even the men want bodie too, but there is no way that she fits that category.   :orly:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Jesse on November 10, 2012, 09:59:17 PM
For me anyways it doesnt matter if a messege board is popular or not. I'll post on here until something in the real world captivates my attention more, I also think topics like this were made out of resentment because they secretly want to post on more active forums.

but either cant,  :zoinks:
Or have the secret to turn everyday common water into gasoline. :prude:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2012, 03:39:00 AM
Quote from: Butterflies
I think that the site needs to make a serious effort to start to engage with the youth.

This implies a conscious, site-wide policy, which in turn implies moderation. How would you go about achieving this?

I'm not about to apologise for my age, nor will I start acting in any other way than what feels comfortable and right to me. If somebody thinks I'm not young at heart or whatever, quite frankly I could not care less. Also, I'm not about to start treating members differently based on their age, and I'm not about to change the site itself based on some probably misguided conception of what the so-called youth might expect to see here.

Interestingly, no-one's explained what that might be or, conversely, what an old person's topics might consist of. 
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 11, 2012, 08:58:48 AM
I'll try and explain things from my POV. A lot of you will disagree, but this is just an opinion.

In the past, when the site was good, some of the younger members, myself included, felt that there was quite a bit of bias towards the older established people on the site. Basically, it felt to me that younger people were very welcome, but the established oldies could do what they wanted with impunity, while the younger members would quickly be torn to pieces for fairly minor stuff.
With Odeon and the mods being of similar ages, and Odeons friends being a similar age, it kinda felt like there was an elite class on this site, with one set of rules applying to the "establishment," and another set of rules for the rest. (BTW. This is not meant as a criticism of the mods, or Odeon, who do a good job.) This was never really a big deal for me in the past, as I felt that I had a good relationship with most members. Also, most importantly, there was always enough young people here that it was easy enough to avoid the worst of the fuddy-duddyness.

Now that there are so few young people who are regularly active here, it feels impossible for me to see this site as anything other than an old-persons site. Yes, I'm deeply fond of a lot of these oldies, and I'd love to hang out on a site with them, but for that to happen, there would need to be a good mix of people.
In the past, I feel that the relative diversity on the site kept it good. We may only have averaged around 25-30 members per day, but in that small group of people, we had a great mix.
In a funny kind of way, I felt that the interaction between the older, more stable members, and the younger, drama producing members, was one of the sites biggest strengths.
We tried to get Zomg running, and IMO, part of the reason it failed was because few of the older sensible people chose to be really active members. It could have worked with only the young, and young at heart, but it would have been an uphill struggle.
This place seems to be having a similar problem, but in reverse. The site appears to be in a self-perpetuating cycle, where the more that it becomes a wrinkle-fest, the less appealing it becomes to younger people.
Also, I don't think it helps that the "establishment" keep getting older :green: When this site was new, the "oldies" like Odeon and Callaway would still have been quite young. 5 years from now, they will be practically elderly :laugh: As the average age of the "establishment" increases, the age gap between them and the new members increases. Not many people under 30 would want to join a site where the "establishment" is so much older than them

OK, I think I'm finished with my stream of consciousness ramble for now, but to sum thing up for those who cant be arsed reading my essay :laugh:, I think that the site needs to make a serious effort to start to engage with the youth.

I am with Odeon on this.
Besides, I can remember just how much fun it was when the "youth of the forum" was "engaging the forum" actively and trying to take shots at "the establishment". It culminated in a call out by Parts on you and I.
If you are using this thread that talks about declining numbers/views as a subversive platform to try to trot out the want to infuse the board wirth the same kind of bullshit drama in a rebranding of "engaging youth on the site", I don't think that is a great idea.
Do you?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 11, 2012, 09:10:26 AM
Papiliones fortes sunt!  :viking:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 11:06:06 AM
Quote from: Butterflies
I think that the site needs to make a serious effort to start to engage with the youth.

This implies a conscious, site-wide policy, which in turn implies moderation. How would you go about achieving this?

I'm not about to apologise for my age, nor will I start acting in any other way than what feels comfortable and right to me. If somebody thinks I'm not young at heart or whatever, quite frankly I could not care less. Also, I'm not about to start treating members differently based on their age, and I'm not about to change the site itself based on some probably misguided conception of what the so-called youth might expect to see here.

Interestingly, no-one's explained what that might be or, conversely, what an old person's topics might consist of.

Unfortunately I dont have the answers. I certainly feel that this site has little to attract younger members, and the only obvious solution is to get more young members. I dont know how to achieve this though.

Quote
I'm not about to apologise for my age, nor will I start acting in any other way than what feels comfortable and right to me. If somebody thinks I'm not young at heart or whatever, quite frankly I could not care less
I think you've misunderstood me. I am certainly not criticizing the older people for being old. Far from it. They are the people who are keeping this site active. Im criticizing the fact that there is no longer a good mix of older and younger members to keep the site vibrant.
I think its natural for people to want to hang out in a place where there are people of their own age. Your closest friends on this site appear to be a similar age to yourself. It doesnt mean that you dont like a lot of the younger members. Its just human nature that we kinda need to have people of or own age around.
I think if you want to see things from my POV, you would have to imagine how you would feel if it was most of your friends who staged an exodus, leaving the site full of a bunch of annoying, dramatic, under-30s.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 11:08:13 AM
Papiliones fortes sunt!  :viking:

et fortis :viking:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 11:23:13 AM
I'll try and explain things from my POV. A lot of you will disagree, but this is just an opinion.

In the past, when the site was good, some of the younger members, myself included, felt that there was quite a bit of bias towards the older established people on the site. Basically, it felt to me that younger people were very welcome, but the established oldies could do what they wanted with impunity, while the younger members would quickly be torn to pieces for fairly minor stuff.
With Odeon and the mods being of similar ages, and Odeons friends being a similar age, it kinda felt like there was an elite class on this site, with one set of rules applying to the "establishment," and another set of rules for the rest. (BTW. This is not meant as a criticism of the mods, or Odeon, who do a good job.) This was never really a big deal for me in the past, as I felt that I had a good relationship with most members. Also, most importantly, there was always enough young people here that it was easy enough to avoid the worst of the fuddy-duddyness.

Now that there are so few young people who are regularly active here, it feels impossible for me to see this site as anything other than an old-persons site. Yes, I'm deeply fond of a lot of these oldies, and I'd love to hang out on a site with them, but for that to happen, there would need to be a good mix of people.
In the past, I feel that the relative diversity on the site kept it good. We may only have averaged around 25-30 members per day, but in that small group of people, we had a great mix.
In a funny kind of way, I felt that the interaction between the older, more stable members, and the younger, drama producing members, was one of the sites biggest strengths.
We tried to get Zomg running, and IMO, part of the reason it failed was because few of the older sensible people chose to be really active members. It could have worked with only the young, and young at heart, but it would have been an uphill struggle.
This place seems to be having a similar problem, but in reverse. The site appears to be in a self-perpetuating cycle, where the more that it becomes a wrinkle-fest, the less appealing it becomes to younger people.
Also, I don't think it helps that the "establishment" keep getting older :green: When this site was new, the "oldies" like Odeon and Callaway would still have been quite young. 5 years from now, they will be practically elderly :laugh: As the average age of the "establishment" increases, the age gap between them and the new members increases. Not many people under 30 would want to join a site where the "establishment" is so much older than them

OK, I think I'm finished with my stream of consciousness ramble for now, but to sum thing up for those who cant be arsed reading my essay :laugh:, I think that the site needs to make a serious effort to start to engage with the youth.

I am with Odeon on this.
Besides, I can remember just how much fun it was when the "youth of the forum" was "engaging the forum" actively and trying to take shots at "the establishment". It culminated in a call out by Parts on you and I.
If you are using this thread that talks about declining numbers/views as a subversive platform to try to trot out the want to infuse the board wirth the same kind of bullshit drama in a rebranding of "engaging youth on the site", I don't think that is a great idea.
Do you?

Im not sure that rebranding is the answer, but I do feel that the site is badly struggling right now. Im sure that different people will have different ideas on where its all gone wrong, and I'm also sure that there will be some who prefer the site as it is now.
Clearly the active membership has declined over the last year or so, and that does coincide with the time that a large amount of younger members stopped posting, or left altogether.
I can also say that as a young person myself, the relative absence of other young people on the site is the main reason why I think I dont find the site very interesting these days.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 11, 2012, 11:30:42 AM
Quote from: Butterflies
I think that the site needs to make a serious effort to start to engage with the youth.

This implies a conscious, site-wide policy, which in turn implies moderation. How would you go about achieving this?

I'm not about to apologise for my age, nor will I start acting in any other way than what feels comfortable and right to me. If somebody thinks I'm not young at heart or whatever, quite frankly I could not care less. Also, I'm not about to start treating members differently based on their age, and I'm not about to change the site itself based on some probably misguided conception of what the so-called youth might expect to see here.

Interestingly, no-one's explained what that might be or, conversely, what an old person's topics might consist of.

Unfortunately I dont have the answers. I certainly feel that this site has little to attract younger members, and the only obvious solution is to get more young members. I dont know how to achieve this though.

Quote
I'm not about to apologise for my age, nor will I start acting in any other way than what feels comfortable and right to me. If somebody thinks I'm not young at heart or whatever, quite frankly I could not care less
I think you've misunderstood me. I am certainly not criticizing the older people for being old. Far from it. They are the people who are keeping this site active. Im criticizing the fact that there is no longer a good mix of older and younger members to keep the site vibrant.
I think its natural for people to want to hang out in a place where there are people of their own age. Your closest friends on this site appear to be a similar age to yourself. It doesnt mean that you dont like a lot of the younger members. Its just human nature that we kinda need to have people of or own age around.
I think if you want to see things from my POV, you would have to imagine how you would feel if it was most of your friends who staged an exodus, leaving the site full of a bunch of annoying, dramatic, under-30s.

I remember that aroud the time of the launch of Spasticity, some of the younger members were making similar claims but in a much more negative and condemning fashion, as to how IntensitySquared was inactive and full of old folk and non-interesting, etc.
They started a new site to cater for younger and cooler members.
Whatever happened there? Surely it would have florished with the activity and vibrant mood?
Personally i believe that this site has and will always have florishes. ups and downs, activity-wise.

But I may be being a bit dismissive here. Who are the active younger members that have stopped posting recently, that the site would benefit from having here?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 11, 2012, 11:31:20 AM
tbh I get the feeling the old fogeys like Les are happy for it to just stay as it is . The nice little Intensity Squared Autistic Retirement Home :zoinks:

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 11:57:41 AM


I remember that aroud the time of the launch of Spasticity, some of the younger members were making similar claims but in a much more negative and condemning fashion, as to how IntensitySquared was inactive and full of old folk and non-interesting, etc.
They started a new site to cater for younger and cooler members.
Whatever happened there? Surely it would have florished with the activity and vibrant mood?
Personally i believe that this site has and will always have florishes. ups and downs, activity-wise.

But I may be being a bit dismissive here. Who are the active younger members that have stopped posting recently, that the site would benefit from having here?


Quote
I remember that aroud the time of the launch of Spasticity, some of the younger members were making similar claims but in a much more negative and condemning fashion, as to how IntensitySquared was inactive and full of old folk and non-interesting, etc.
They started a new site to cater for younger and cooler members.
Whatever happened there? Surely it would have florished with the activity and vibrant mood?
Personally i believe that this site has and will always have florishes. ups and downs, activity-wise.
As Ive said several times. I feel a small site needs a good mix of people, of all ages. I2 currently has a problem in that it struggles to attract younger people. Zomg and S2 didnt really attract oldies, and I feel that was every bit as big a problem. We all saw how Zomg and S2 ended, so Im not really sure that they are a very good example of why I2 should never change.


Quote
But I may be being a bit dismissive here. Who are the active younger members that have stopped posting recently, that the site would benefit from having here?

I'm not really comfortable answering this question, but if I had to name a few young people off the top of my head, who have either left or severely cut back on their posting I would say, Squiddy, Eris, Adam, Schleed, Scrappy, Binty, Penty, and myself. Thats not including people like Trigger or EBM who dont seem to be around now, and who could probably fall into the "young" category.
That is at least 8 people, all young, who were very active members. A very rough look at the figures suggests that the average amount of members online each day has fallen from around 31, 18 months ago, to around 16 now. I can understand if you arent bothered by the site losing these people, but I think it would be downright silly to suggest that the site hasnt suffered badly for their loss.

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 11, 2012, 12:11:04 PM
Iuvenis in corde sum  :)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 11, 2012, 12:13:31 PM


I remember that aroud the time of the launch of Spasticity, some of the younger members were making similar claims but in a much more negative and condemning fashion, as to how IntensitySquared was inactive and full of old folk and non-interesting, etc.
They started a new site to cater for younger and cooler members.
Whatever happened there? Surely it would have florished with the activity and vibrant mood?
Personally i believe that this site has and will always have florishes. ups and downs, activity-wise.

But I may be being a bit dismissive here. Who are the active younger members that have stopped posting recently, that the site would benefit from having here?


Quote
I remember that aroud the time of the launch of Spasticity, some of the younger members were making similar claims but in a much more negative and condemning fashion, as to how IntensitySquared was inactive and full of old folk and non-interesting, etc.
They started a new site to cater for younger and cooler members.
Whatever happened there? Surely it would have florished with the activity and vibrant mood?
Personally i believe that this site has and will always have florishes. ups and downs, activity-wise.
As Ive said several times. I feel a small site needs a good mix of people, of all ages. I2 currently has a problem in that it struggles to attract younger people. Zomg and S2 didnt really attract oldies, and I feel that was every bit as big a problem. We all saw how Zomg and S2 ended, so Im not really sure that they are a very good example of why I2 should never change.


Quote
But I may be being a bit dismissive here. Who are the active younger members that have stopped posting recently, that the site would benefit from having here?

I'm not really comfortable answering this question, but if I had to name a few young people off the top of my head, who have either left or severely cut back on their posting I would say, Squiddy, Eris, Adam, Schleed, Scrappy, Binty, Penty, and myself. Thats not including people like Trigger or EBM who dont seem to be around now, and who could probably fall into the "young" category.
That is at least 8 people, all young, who were very active members. A very rough look at the figures suggests that the average amount of members online each day has fallen from around 31, 18 months ago, to around 16 now. I can understand if you arent bothered by the site losing these people, but I think it would be downright silly to suggest that the site hasnt suffered badly for their loss.

Were we to entertain this as being problematic and so forth, we would look at each of the people in turn.

Squiddy? Some miss him. I don't.
Eris and Binty? They left recently after a big meltdowns. It seems as if they had a bigger problem with the younger members than the older members. 
Scrappy was in his forties and not a younger member. He was ridiculous and almost a caricature
EBM and Eris  and Trigger are in their 30's and are not that far removed in age from me.
Penty? Dunno what happened with him and had not realised he was not posting until you mentioned it,
I see no real drop in post with Adam.
I see you back, but then I did not miss you when you were gone nor was I bothered by your return.
Shleed? Again whether he posts or not ....meh.

You missed out on Calvera. He was in age probably younger than Trigger, EBM and Eris.

In fact Trigger could well be my age or older
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 11, 2012, 12:34:27 PM
For me anyways it doesnt matter if a messege board is popular or not. I'll post on here until something in the real world captivates my attention more, I also think topics like this were made out of resentment because they secretly want to post on more active forums.

but either cant,  :zoinks:
Or have the secret to turn everyday common water into gasoline. :prude:

In a few decades, clean common water may be more expensive than gasoline.  :orly:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 11, 2012, 12:35:24 PM
lol Les have you not been reading what Butterflies said?

She's not talking about biologica/legal age
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 12:40:53 PM
Iuvenis in corde sum  :)

et quoque anus :green:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2012, 12:41:09 PM
Quote from: Butterflies
I think that the site needs to make a serious effort to start to engage with the youth.

This implies a conscious, site-wide policy, which in turn implies moderation. How would you go about achieving this?

I'm not about to apologise for my age, nor will I start acting in any other way than what feels comfortable and right to me. If somebody thinks I'm not young at heart or whatever, quite frankly I could not care less. Also, I'm not about to start treating members differently based on their age, and I'm not about to change the site itself based on some probably misguided conception of what the so-called youth might expect to see here.

Interestingly, no-one's explained what that might be or, conversely, what an old person's topics might consist of.

Unfortunately I dont have the answers. I certainly feel that this site has little to attract younger members, and the only obvious solution is to get more young members. I dont know how to achieve this though.

You don't have the answers but still feel there is little to attract younger members? Do you know what younger members would like? Do you know what younger members WOULDN'T like?

I'm confused. I2 doesn't have what you want, yet you don't know what you want or what others in your age group want? Yours seems like a very confused generation, tbh.

Me, I'm content with the pub-like atmosphere we do have, and quite a few of the other grumpies seem to accept it, too. True, not every young folk is allowed into a pub, but then again, that is why they invented latte houses and placed McDonald's restaurants in every corner.

Quote
Quote
I'm not about to apologise for my age, nor will I start acting in any other way than what feels comfortable and right to me. If somebody thinks I'm not young at heart or whatever, quite frankly I could not care less
I think you've misunderstood me. I am certainly not criticizing the older people for being old. Far from it. They are the people who are keeping this site active. Im criticizing the fact that there is no longer a good mix of older and younger members to keep the site vibrant.
I think its natural for people to want to hang out in a place where there are people of their own age. Your closest friends on this site appear to be a similar age to yourself. It doesnt mean that you dont like a lot of the younger members. Its just human nature that we kinda need to have people of or own age around.
I think if you want to see things from my POV, you would have to imagine how you would feel if it was most of your friends who staged an exodus, leaving the site full of a bunch of annoying, dramatic, under-30s.

Don't get me wrong either. I'm not criticising kids for being kids; I'm simply saying that I don't have a clue about what you want and it seems neither do you.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2012, 12:44:04 PM
Im not sure that rebranding is the answer, but I do feel that the site is badly struggling right now. Im sure that different people will have different ideas on where its all gone wrong, and I'm also sure that there will be some who prefer the site as it is now.
Clearly the active membership has declined over the last year or so, and that does coincide with the time that a large amount of younger members stopped posting, or left altogether.
I can also say that as a young person myself, the relative absence of other young people on the site is the main reason why I think I dont find the site very interesting these days.

CBC's declining posting average is a bigger factor, tbh. As for "struggling", post something that you find interesting or something you think your age group might find interesting. Nothing is stopping you.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2012, 12:45:00 PM
tbh I get the feeling the old fogeys like Les are happy for it to just stay as it is . The nice little Intensity Squared Autistic Retirement Home :zoinks:

How is Kindergarten Zomg anyway, these days? :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 11, 2012, 12:48:51 PM
LOL, missed a whole page, in this debate.

A forum is a thing that slowly may get outdated. Newer social media are a lot faster, quicker, and, more social. And, that may be why "the young" are not joining in big numbers on I2.

Im not sure that rebranding is the answer, but I do feel that the site is badly struggling right now. Im sure that different people will have different ideas on where its all gone wrong, and I'm also sure that there will be some who prefer the site as it is now.
Clearly the active membership has declined over the last year or so, and that does coincide with the time that a large amount of younger members stopped posting, or left altogether.
I can also say that as a young person myself, the relative absence of other young people on the site is the main reason why I think I dont find the site very interesting these days.

CBC's declining posting average is a bigger factor, tbh. As for "struggling", post something that you find interesting or something you think your age group might find interesting. Nothing is stopping you.

Someone needs to kick that Weeble in the ass.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2012, 12:49:18 PM
I'm not really comfortable answering this question, but if I had to name a few young people off the top of my head, who have either left or severely cut back on their posting I would say, Squiddy, Eris, Adam, Schleed, Scrappy, Binty, Penty, and myself. Thats not including people like Trigger or EBM who dont seem to be around now, and who could probably fall into the "young" category.
That is at least 8 people, all young, who were very active members. A very rough look at the figures suggests that the average amount of members online each day has fallen from around 31, 18 months ago, to around 16 now. I can understand if you arent bothered by the site losing these people, but I think it would be downright silly to suggest that the site hasnt suffered badly for their loss.

Adam and Schleed are posting here. Binty wanted away from every kind of forum, AFAIK. Trigger is around, every now and then, but was never a particularly frequent poster. Eris and quite a few of the younger folks got along swimmingly, I seem to remember, as did Penty and mostly everyone.

And here you are, posting.

Unless your main driving force here is generating drama, I don't understand your point at all.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 11, 2012, 12:50:03 PM
lol Les have you not been reading what Butterflies said?

She's not talking about biologica/legal age

I am presuming this is what she means, because if she or anyone else were to try and make any assumption of how old any one person on here was in any other way, they would be completely idiotic.
No really they would be. What would they have to base this off? How they behave with their friends? in their workplace? With their children? With their peers? Or what they say on the forum?
How do you reconcile this mental or emtional age against their biological age? What method exactly? What point of reference? What measure?
I think if anyone has or is attempting this, they are not worth asking for their opinions, as their thinking is flawed.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 12:52:28 PM


I remember that aroud the time of the launch of Spasticity, some of the younger members were making similar claims but in a much more negative and condemning fashion, as to how IntensitySquared was inactive and full of old folk and non-interesting, etc.
They started a new site to cater for younger and cooler members.
Whatever happened there? Surely it would have florished with the activity and vibrant mood?
Personally i believe that this site has and will always have florishes. ups and downs, activity-wise.

But I may be being a bit dismissive here. Who are the active younger members that have stopped posting recently, that the site would benefit from having here?


Quote
I remember that aroud the time of the launch of Spasticity, some of the younger members were making similar claims but in a much more negative and condemning fashion, as to how IntensitySquared was inactive and full of old folk and non-interesting, etc.
They started a new site to cater for younger and cooler members.
Whatever happened there? Surely it would have florished with the activity and vibrant mood?
Personally i believe that this site has and will always have florishes. ups and downs, activity-wise.
As Ive said several times. I feel a small site needs a good mix of people, of all ages. I2 currently has a problem in that it struggles to attract younger people. Zomg and S2 didnt really attract oldies, and I feel that was every bit as big a problem. We all saw how Zomg and S2 ended, so Im not really sure that they are a very good example of why I2 should never change.


Quote
But I may be being a bit dismissive here. Who are the active younger members that have stopped posting recently, that the site would benefit from having here?

I'm not really comfortable answering this question, but if I had to name a few young people off the top of my head, who have either left or severely cut back on their posting I would say, Squiddy, Eris, Adam, Schleed, Scrappy, Binty, Penty, and myself. Thats not including people like Trigger or EBM who dont seem to be around now, and who could probably fall into the "young" category.
That is at least 8 people, all young, who were very active members. A very rough look at the figures suggests that the average amount of members online each day has fallen from around 31, 18 months ago, to around 16 now. I can understand if you arent bothered by the site losing these people, but I think it would be downright silly to suggest that the site hasnt suffered badly for their loss.

Were we to entertain this as being problematic and so forth, we would look at each of the people in turn.

Squiddy? Some miss him. I don't.
Eris and Binty? They left recently after a big meltdowns. It seems as if they had a bigger problem with the younger members than the older members. 
Scrappy was in his forties and not a younger member. He was ridiculous and almost a caricature
EBM and Eris  and Trigger are in their 30's and are not that far removed in age from me.
Penty? Dunno what happened with him and had not realised he was not posting until you mentioned it,
I see no real drop in post with Adam.
I see you back, but then I did not miss you when you were gone nor was I bothered by your return.
Shleed? Again whether he posts or not ....meh.

You missed out on Calvera. He was in age probably younger than Trigger, EBM and Eris.

In fact Trigger could well be my age or older

OK, so we have established that you dont miss the young people who dont post much now. It seems that you would prefer to post on a dying site with your mates, than on a vibrant site with a lot of people youre not keen on. If you take a look at the site stats, you will see that the site is far from being better off without them.
Of course, youre welcome to feel that way. I can even understand it. However, it doesnt seem like an attitude that is helpful to the site.


As a young person, its that group of people who would encourage me to hang around here, and to post regularly.

And I didnt forget about Calavera.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 11, 2012, 12:53:12 PM
Iuvenis in corde sum  :)

et quoque anus :green:

 :agreed:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 11, 2012, 12:54:50 PM


I remember that aroud the time of the launch of Spasticity, some of the younger members were making similar claims but in a much more negative and condemning fashion, as to how IntensitySquared was inactive and full of old folk and non-interesting, etc.
They started a new site to cater for younger and cooler members.
Whatever happened there? Surely it would have florished with the activity and vibrant mood?
Personally i believe that this site has and will always have florishes. ups and downs, activity-wise.

But I may be being a bit dismissive here. Who are the active younger members that have stopped posting recently, that the site would benefit from having here?


Quote
I remember that aroud the time of the launch of Spasticity, some of the younger members were making similar claims but in a much more negative and condemning fashion, as to how IntensitySquared was inactive and full of old folk and non-interesting, etc.
They started a new site to cater for younger and cooler members.
Whatever happened there? Surely it would have florished with the activity and vibrant mood?
Personally i believe that this site has and will always have florishes. ups and downs, activity-wise.
As Ive said several times. I feel a small site needs a good mix of people, of all ages. I2 currently has a problem in that it struggles to attract younger people. Zomg and S2 didnt really attract oldies, and I feel that was every bit as big a problem. We all saw how Zomg and S2 ended, so Im not really sure that they are a very good example of why I2 should never change.


Quote
But I may be being a bit dismissive here. Who are the active younger members that have stopped posting recently, that the site would benefit from having here?

I'm not really comfortable answering this question, but if I had to name a few young people off the top of my head, who have either left or severely cut back on their posting I would say, Squiddy, Eris, Adam, Schleed, Scrappy, Binty, Penty, and myself. Thats not including people like Trigger or EBM who dont seem to be around now, and who could probably fall into the "young" category.
That is at least 8 people, all young, who were very active members. A very rough look at the figures suggests that the average amount of members online each day has fallen from around 31, 18 months ago, to around 16 now. I can understand if you arent bothered by the site losing these people, but I think it would be downright silly to suggest that the site hasnt suffered badly for their loss.

Were we to entertain this as being problematic and so forth, we would look at each of the people in turn.

Squiddy? Some miss him. I don't.
Eris and Binty? They left recently after a big meltdowns. It seems as if they had a bigger problem with the younger members than the older members. 
Scrappy was in his forties and not a younger member. He was ridiculous and almost a caricature
EBM and Eris  and Trigger are in their 30's and are not that far removed in age from me.
Penty? Dunno what happened with him and had not realised he was not posting until you mentioned it,
I see no real drop in post with Adam.
I see you back, but then I did not miss you when you were gone nor was I bothered by your return.
Shleed? Again whether he posts or not ....meh.

You missed out on Calvera. He was in age probably younger than Trigger, EBM and Eris.

In fact Trigger could well be my age or older

OK, so we have established that you dont miss the young people who dont post much now. It seems that you would prefer to post on a dying site with your mates, than on a vibrant site with a lot of people youre not keen on. If you take a look at the site stats, you will see that the site is far from being better off without them.
Of course, youre welcome to feel that way. I can even understand it. However, it doesnt seem like an attitude that is helpful to the site.


As a young person, its that group of people who would encourage me to hang around here, and to post regularly.

And I didnt forget about Calavera.

I miss Bintska, Squiddy and Scrapheap  :(
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2012, 12:55:23 PM
lol Les have you not been reading what Butterflies said?

She's not talking about biologica/legal age

Seems to me she was. Certainly she has not qualified it in any other way.

The "young at heart" bullshit is, well, bullshit. Seems to me it's simply something you excuse yourself with when forming a clique consisting of people you happen to like.

Unless you actually have defined what the youth demographic group want to see here and I just missed it.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 11, 2012, 12:57:49 PM
I have a weak spot for Squiddy.

I don't think he left out of boredom though.





I never saw Scrappy as young.....


EBM comes and goes, he always did, he probably always will. Nice to see him when he pops up though.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2012, 12:59:04 PM
And I didnt forget about Calavera.

You didn't mention him, so it was a fair assumption to make.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 11, 2012, 01:00:45 PM


I remember that aroud the time of the launch of Spasticity, some of the younger members were making similar claims but in a much more negative and condemning fashion, as to how IntensitySquared was inactive and full of old folk and non-interesting, etc.
They started a new site to cater for younger and cooler members.
Whatever happened there? Surely it would have florished with the activity and vibrant mood?
Personally i believe that this site has and will always have florishes. ups and downs, activity-wise.

But I may be being a bit dismissive here. Who are the active younger members that have stopped posting recently, that the site would benefit from having here?


Quote
I remember that aroud the time of the launch of Spasticity, some of the younger members were making similar claims but in a much more negative and condemning fashion, as to how IntensitySquared was inactive and full of old folk and non-interesting, etc.
They started a new site to cater for younger and cooler members.
Whatever happened there? Surely it would have florished with the activity and vibrant mood?
Personally i believe that this site has and will always have florishes. ups and downs, activity-wise.
As Ive said several times. I feel a small site needs a good mix of people, of all ages. I2 currently has a problem in that it struggles to attract younger people. Zomg and S2 didnt really attract oldies, and I feel that was every bit as big a problem. We all saw how Zomg and S2 ended, so Im not really sure that they are a very good example of why I2 should never change.


Quote
But I may be being a bit dismissive here. Who are the active younger members that have stopped posting recently, that the site would benefit from having here?

I'm not really comfortable answering this question, but if I had to name a few young people off the top of my head, who have either left or severely cut back on their posting I would say, Squiddy, Eris, Adam, Schleed, Scrappy, Binty, Penty, and myself. Thats not including people like Trigger or EBM who dont seem to be around now, and who could probably fall into the "young" category.
That is at least 8 people, all young, who were very active members. A very rough look at the figures suggests that the average amount of members online each day has fallen from around 31, 18 months ago, to around 16 now. I can understand if you arent bothered by the site losing these people, but I think it would be downright silly to suggest that the site hasnt suffered badly for their loss.

Were we to entertain this as being problematic and so forth, we would look at each of the people in turn.

Squiddy? Some miss him. I don't.
Eris and Binty? They left recently after a big meltdowns. It seems as if they had a bigger problem with the younger members than the older members. 
Scrappy was in his forties and not a younger member. He was ridiculous and almost a caricature
EBM and Eris  and Trigger are in their 30's and are not that far removed in age from me.
Penty? Dunno what happened with him and had not realised he was not posting until you mentioned it,
I see no real drop in post with Adam.
I see you back, but then I did not miss you when you were gone nor was I bothered by your return.
Shleed? Again whether he posts or not ....meh.

You missed out on Calvera. He was in age probably younger than Trigger, EBM and Eris.

In fact Trigger could well be my age or older

OK, so we have established that you dont miss the young people who dont post much now. It seems that you would prefer to post on a dying site with your mates, than on a vibrant site with a lot of people youre not keen on. If you take a look at the site stats, you will see that the site is far from being better off without them.
Of course, youre welcome to feel that way. I can even understand it. However, it doesnt seem like an attitude that is helpful to the site.


As a young person, its that group of people who would encourage me to hang around here, and to post regularly.

And I didnt forget about Calavera.

A dying site or a site that is just bereft of a lot of activity for a time. These are two very different things.
Before answering. over the last 5 or 6 years, there have been other similar times where the stats have similarlydropped and even to levels lower than this.
So can you clarify what you meant? Dying site or a site with a drop in activity?
I honestly don't care if young people or old people post. I don't care if you or Binty or Eris or Scrap or whomever post
I know when Scrap was last here with Squiddy and Eris and Binty it was not "vibrant". I know that having young people here does not equate to making it vibrant and I know you would not be making such a stupid association between the the two terms, right?
Young posters =/= vibrant
Young posters can be vibrant but this is not causal.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 11, 2012, 01:03:11 PM
For something completely different, just checked my memory, thought mine was failing.....

People mentioning missing Randy, and the interaction they had with him. Some joined here joined after me. I could not remember ever having encountered Randy on this place, apart from posts he had left behind.

Indeed, last time (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?action=profile;u=71) he was active on this place was December 8 2007.

So, not senile yet.

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2012, 01:03:48 PM
My recollection is that the site was far from vibrant with said "youngsters" around. There was plenty of drama, though, and some of the youngsters still manage to create drama, without even being here.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2012, 01:04:43 PM
For something completely different, just checked my memory, thought mine was failing.....

People mentioning missing Randy, and the interaction they had with him. Some joined here joined after me. I could not remember ever having encountered Randy on this place, apart from posts he had left behind.

Indeed, last time (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?action=profile;u=71) he was active on this place was December 8 2007.

So, not senile yet.

Randy has had several accounts here. I don't remember what his last one was, tbh.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 11, 2012, 01:06:55 PM
For something completely different, just checked my memory, thought mine was failing.....

People mentioning missing Randy, and the interaction they had with him. Some joined here joined after me. I could not remember ever having encountered Randy on this place, apart from posts he had left behind.

Indeed, last time (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?action=profile;u=71) he was active on this place was December 8 2007.

So, not senile yet.

Randy has had several accounts here. I don't remember what his last one was, tbh.

Still think I have not encountered him. Missed out on ginseng posts, or pm's. Do recall a lot of his posts being dug up, and, it was worth it.  :laugh:

......

Shit, may have to see a geriatrist after all.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 11, 2012, 01:13:43 PM
And I didnt forget about Calavera.

You didn't mention him, so it was a fair assumption to make.

No, because (again) you're missing the point - Butterflies is not seperating the membership into under 30s and over 30s

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 11, 2012, 01:20:58 PM
And I didnt forget about Calavera.

You didn't mention him, so it was a fair assumption to make.

No, because (again) you're missing the point - Butterflies is not seperating the membership into under 30s and over 30s

I know when Scrap was last here with Squiddy and Eris and Binty it was not "vibrant". I know that having "young people" here does not equate to making it vibrant and I know you would not be making such a stupid association between the the two terms, right?
Young posters =/= vibrant
Young posters can be vibrant but this is not causal.

So taking this into account what do you think she is saying and what are you supporting?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 01:36:35 PM


Adam and Schleed are posting here. Binty wanted away from every kind of forum, AFAIK. Trigger is around, every now and then, but was never a particularly frequent poster. Eris and quite a few of the younger folks got along swimmingly, I seem to remember, as did Penty and mostly everyone.


I'm not talking about the reasons for anyone leaving. They all had their own reasons. Im saying that the site doesnt work as well without them, and that they have never been replaced.

Quote
Unless your main driving force here is generating drama, I don't understand your point at all.

The point of that post was to answer Les' question. My overall point is that this site worked well when there was a good mix of old and young. Now that there is no real mix, I dont feel that the site works anywhere near as well.


Quote
You don't have the answers but still feel there is little to attract younger members? Do you know what younger members would like? Do you know what younger members WOULDN'T like?

I know what I would like, and I know what I dont like.
I do believe that most young people would like a site with other young people on it.


Quote
I'm confused. I2 doesn't have what you want, yet you don't know what you want or what others in your age group want? Yours seems like a very confused generation, tbh.

I know what I want. I have no idea how to achieve it though.



Quote
Me, I'm content with the pub-like atmosphere we do have, and quite a few of the other grumpies seem to accept it, too. True, not every young folk is allowed into a pub, but then again, that is why they invented latte houses and placed McDonald's restaurants in every corner.

OK, I like the word "grumpies." :laugh: That is probably more accurate than "oldies," so I'll use that word instead.

Ive also been thinking of a pub as a good analogy too, so.
In the best pubs, you have a good mix of regulars who different people of different ages. In the past, this place was like a good pub. I would come in, speak to my "grumpy" mates, have a few shots with them, and then go and hang out with the youngsters at the slot machines. If things got a bit dull, I could still shoot some pool with my "grumpy" mates.
Nowadays, I can still come to the pub and meet my "grumpy" mates, but theres no real group of youngsters to create a good balance.


Quote
CBC's declining posting average is a bigger factor, tbh

In January to March 2011, there was generally between 330 and 800 new posts per day, with it exceeding 1000 once. Over the last three months, there has generally been between 69 and 240 new posts per day, with it getting into the 300s a few times. CBC currently has a posting average of 36.6 posts per day. She appears to still be posting regularly, so it seems unlikely that any drop in her posting would have amounted to more than 20 fewer posts per day on the forum.
Also, the "new posts" stat is only one stat. The "most online" stat, which shows how many members have been online each day has dropped by roughly a third in the same timescale.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 01:51:06 PM
For something completely different, just checked my memory, thought mine was failing.....

People mentioning missing Randy, and the interaction they had with him. Some joined here joined after me. I could not remember ever having encountered Randy on this place, apart from posts he had left behind.

Indeed, last time (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?action=profile;u=71) he was active on this place was December 8 2007.

So, not senile yet.

Randy was online for a few weeks after I joined. Hes not the type Im likely to forget :laugh:

Im sure I just saw a post from you saying that twitter and other more modern social media might be a contributing factor in why there are so few young people now, but I cant find it to quote it.
You could well be right. I cant say I know anything about social media, apart from that it icks me out :laugh: I suppose people have more options for where to spend their time online, and it could be that forums are feeling it the most. It is also true that the "grumpies" are more likely to stay where they are, whilst younger people are more likely to try the new stuff. It could be that this problem is not exclusive to this forum.
I definitely dont think that its the reason why so many young people have stopped posting, but it could certainly be a large part of the reason why so few are coming along to replace them.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 02:19:07 PM


A dying site or a site that is just bereft of a lot of activity for a time. These are two very different things.
Before answering. over the last 5 or 6 years, there have been other similar times where the stats have similarlydropped and even to levels lower than this.
So can you clarify what you meant? Dying site or a site with a drop in activity?
I honestly don't care if young people or old people post. I don't care if you or Binty or Eris or Scrap or whomever post
I know when Scrap was last here with Squiddy and Eris and Binty it was not "vibrant". I know that having young people here does not equate to making it vibrant and I know you would not be making such a stupid association between the the two terms, right?
Young posters =/= vibrant
Young posters can be vibrant but this is not causal.

In 2008 there appears to have been a time during the second half of the year when things werent going great. There was often only around 12 members online per day, although they seemed to do a lot of posting. Possibly down Callandale.
The site seemed to pick up in early 2009, and seemed to go from strength to strength for the next few years.
If the site hadnt picked up, I struggle to believe that it would still be here today. Of course, the same applies to the site now. It could easily take off again, and become a great site again, but it could just as easily continue to go downhill until nobody is left.

To answer your original question, when something is in sharp decline, people often refer to it as dying. Only time will tell if this site is really dying, or if it is just going through a rough patch. I imagine that eventually the site will either pick up again, or will end up like The Drivel. I dont know what the future holds for this site.

To answer your other question, having a lot of young people on a site does not make it vibrant. Having a good mix of people of all ages does contribute towards making it vibrant.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 02:20:59 PM
lol Les have you not been reading what Butterflies said?

She's not talking about biologica/legal age

Seems to me she was. Certainly she has not qualified it in any other way.

The "young at heart" bullshit is, well, bullshit. Seems to me it's simply something you excuse yourself with when forming a clique consisting of people you happen to like.

Unless you actually have defined what the youth demographic group want to see here and I just missed it.

Im not talking about biological age.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2012, 02:33:22 PM
And I didnt forget about Calavera.

You didn't mention him, so it was a fair assumption to make.

No, because (again) you're missing the point - Butterflies is not seperating the membership into under 30s and over 30s

You are missing my point, which is that Butterflies did in fact not mention Calavera. Bloody spazz.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2012, 02:40:16 PM
lol Les have you not been reading what Butterflies said?

She's not talking about biologica/legal age

Seems to me she was. Certainly she has not qualified it in any other way.

The "young at heart" bullshit is, well, bullshit. Seems to me it's simply something you excuse yourself with when forming a clique consisting of people you happen to like.

Unless you actually have defined what the youth demographic group want to see here and I just missed it.

Im not talking about biological age.

You want "young" people to post here, mixed with the "old". As you haven't bothered to define either, I have to go with what the words actually mean. But feel free to tell the readership what you actually mean.

Unless it is what I said, that you use the terms loosely to define a clique consisting of people you like.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 11, 2012, 02:51:32 PM
Just a few things and at risk of repeating myself over and over, I think I would like to have this clarified.

If you are not talking  young or old in biological terms then what is the term you are associating with young and old?
If it is emotional or mental, then what is your term of reference? How do you measure against their actual age and their (emotional/mental?) age? How do you measure them up against others? What aspects of them do you configure their "age" against (apart from how they type on a keyboard)?

These are serious questions because of this.

There was a time that you and Adam and Squid in particular decided to go to extreme lengths to drive a propaganda campaign here about this place being crap, that there were too many older people, that the older people were no good and the site was failing, that the older people were part of a clique and so on. The answer was to encourage everyone who was young (and cool) to leave here and go to Spasticity and later to Zomgreloaded). When you started getting back up early in the piece by Scrap and a couple of the others who were older you all welcomed them in and amended earlier comments to allow young at heart or some such.
The sites did not do so well. The young clique broke down a bit. (Eris and Bint had a falling out and Squiddy and Scrap stopped posting on forums, etc). Now with the MLA starting this thread showing a drop in activity, I see you dragging up dead and buried ideologies. Ones that died a well deserved death back then.

I see you making overtures as to vibrance and young people here. One does not equate to the other so why are you making these associations?

Why are you suggesting that the place is dying when it has mant times in the last 6 or so years had times of similar levels or worse inactivity and never died? What is the purpose in stating it is dying?

Why are you inferring that the young people left because of the old or because of the culture?

Are you really just saying that you would like more people that you like here and that you would call them "young"?

I do not understand why you are doing and saying the above but would be very grateful if you could clarify this.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2012, 03:10:20 PM


Adam and Schleed are posting here. Binty wanted away from every kind of forum, AFAIK. Trigger is around, every now and then, but was never a particularly frequent poster. Eris and quite a few of the younger folks got along swimmingly, I seem to remember, as did Penty and mostly everyone.


I'm not talking about the reasons for anyone leaving. They all had their own reasons. Im saying that the site doesnt work as well without them, and that they have never been replaced.

Did you notice the part where I pointed out that several of them are still posting? When looking back at the number of posts per month, the coincide with drama, a lot of which wasn't too pretty and certainly not "vibrant".

Quote
Quote
Unless your main driving force here is generating drama, I don't understand your point at all.

The point of that post was to answer Les' question. My overall point is that this site worked well when there was a good mix of old and young. Now that there is no real mix, I dont feel that the site works anywhere near as well.

Without being able to define what comprises "old" or "young", so the assumption is meaningless, IMHO. I'm more inclined to believe that new drama is what really feeds the place. A lot of the later half of last year's posts were about drama and some fairly ugly incidents, and incidentally, the post count went up.

Or take a look further back, when Meadow was generating drama. The post count went up.

Quote
Quote
You don't have the answers but still feel there is little to attract younger members? Do you know what younger members would like? Do you know what younger members WOULDN'T like?

I know what I would like, and I know what I dont like.
I do believe that most young people would like a site with other young people on it.

Young as in "younger than 30" or "young at heart"? And if the latter, what does that mean? What would you like them to post about?

Quote
Quote
I'm confused. I2 doesn't have what you want, yet you don't know what you want or what others in your age group want? Yours seems like a very confused generation, tbh.

I know what I want. I have no idea how to achieve it though.



Quote
Me, I'm content with the pub-like atmosphere we do have, and quite a few of the other grumpies seem to accept it, too. True, not every young folk is allowed into a pub, but then again, that is why they invented latte houses and placed McDonald's restaurants in every corner.

OK, I like the word "grumpies." :laugh: That is probably more accurate than "oldies," so I'll use that word instead.

Ive also been thinking of a pub as a good analogy too, so.
In the best pubs, you have a good mix of regulars who different people of different ages. In the past, this place was like a good pub. I would come in, speak to my "grumpy" mates, have a few shots with them, and then go and hang out with the youngsters at the slot machines. If things got a bit dull, I could still shoot some pool with my "grumpy" mates.
Nowadays, I can still come to the pub and meet my "grumpy" mates, but theres no real group of youngsters to create a good balance.


Quote
CBC's declining posting average is a bigger factor, tbh

In January to March 2011, there was generally between 330 and 800 new posts per day, with it exceeding 1000 once. Over the last three months, there has generally been between 69 and 240 new posts per day, with it getting into the 300s a few times. CBC currently has a posting average of 36.6 posts per day. She appears to still be posting regularly, so it seems unlikely that any drop in her posting would have amounted to more than 20 fewer posts per day on the forum.
Also, the "new posts" stat is only one stat. The "most online" stat, which shows how many members have been online each day has dropped by roughly a third in the same timescale.

You do realise that CBC's real post count is lower than that, it's just that it's dropping? Or that my post count is similarly lower than a year or 18 months ago (when it went up because of, you guessed it, drama)?

There will be drama again. This thread, for example, is already boosting the stats, which I knew almost as soon as I first read MLA's first post in it.

So no, I very much doubt the site is dying. It takes more than repeating the notion as a mantra.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2012, 03:12:18 PM
In 2008 there appears to have been a time during the second half of the year when things werent going great. There was often only around 12 members online per day, although they seemed to do a lot of posting. Possibly down Callandale.

Calandale caused several people to leave and at that time I really thought the site might not survive. People were sick and tired of the constant bullshit.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 03:15:48 PM
lol Les have you not been reading what Butterflies said?

She's not talking about biologica/legal age

Seems to me she was. Certainly she has not qualified it in any other way.

The "young at heart" bullshit is, well, bullshit. Seems to me it's simply something you excuse yourself with when forming a clique consisting of people you happen to like.

Unless you actually have defined what the youth demographic group want to see here and I just missed it.

Im not talking about biological age.

You want "young" people to post here, mixed with the "old". As you haven't bothered to define either, I have to go with what the words actually mean. But feel free to tell the readership what you actually mean.

Unless it is what I said, that you use the terms loosely to define a clique consisting of people you like.

MLA created a thread where he posted 4 graphs, highlighting how much less active the site now was. He also labeled the thread "A retrospective." It appeared that he was looking for people to discuss the situation, and to look at why the site is faring so badly these days.

As someone who was a very active member of the site, but who now feels it has lost its way, I thought I was in a good position to explain why the site has lost its appeal to me.
I politely gave my opinions on the matter, and now, because yourself, and Les disagree with my opinions, you have spent the next 6 pages hassling me about my opinion.

This is exactly the kind of behavior that I was alluding to in my first couple of posts on this subject. It feels like nobody is allowed to voice an opinion that you and Les disagree with. If I have an opinion that you guys dislike, you appear to just want to hound, and hound away, pushing me to explain every word of what I've said.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 11, 2012, 03:21:35 PM
lol Les have you not been reading what Butterflies said?

She's not talking about biologica/legal age

Seems to me she was. Certainly she has not qualified it in any other way.

The "young at heart" bullshit is, well, bullshit. Seems to me it's simply something you excuse yourself with when forming a clique consisting of people you happen to like.

Unless you actually have defined what the youth demographic group want to see here and I just missed it.

Im not talking about biological age.

You want "young" people to post here, mixed with the "old". As you haven't bothered to define either, I have to go with what the words actually mean. But feel free to tell the readership what you actually mean.

Unless it is what I said, that you use the terms loosely to define a clique consisting of people you like.

MLA created a thread where he posted 4 graphs, highlighting how much less active the site now was. He also labeled the thread "A retrospective." It appeared that he was looking for people to discuss the situation, and to look at why the site is faring so badly these days.

As someone who was a very active member of the site, but who now feels it has lost its way, I thought I was in a good position to explain why the site has lost its appeal to me.
I politely gave my opinions on the matter, and now, because yourself, and Les disagree with my opinions, you have spent the next 6 pages hassling me about my opinion.

This is exactly the kind of behavior that I was alluding to in my first couple of posts on this subject. It feels like nobody is allowed to voice an opinion that you and Les disagree with. If I have an opinion that you guys dislike, you appear to just want to hound, and hound away, pushing me to explain every word of what I've said.

If you don't make yourself understood then it is no good for members to ask for clarification? If asking questions is clarification and that debtaing ideas and points of view is not good then what do you propose as an alternative?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 03:25:43 PM
Just a few things and at risk of repeating myself over and over, I think I would like to have this clarified.

If you are not talking  young or old in biological terms then what is the term you are associating with young and old?
If it is emotional or mental, then what is your term of reference? How do you measure against their actual age and their (emotional/mental?) age? How do you measure them up against others? What aspects of them do you configure their "age" against (apart from how they type on a keyboard)?

These are serious questions because of this.

There was a time that you and Adam and Squid in particular decided to go to extreme lengths to drive a propaganda campaign here about this place being crap, that there were too many older people, that the older people were no good and the site was failing, that the older people were part of a clique and so on. The answer was to encourage everyone who was young (and cool) to leave here and go to Spasticity and later to Zomgreloaded). When you started getting back up early in the piece by Scrap and a couple of the others who were older you all welcomed them in and amended earlier comments to allow young at heart or some such.
The sites did not do so well. The young clique broke down a bit. (Eris and Bint had a falling out and Squiddy and Scrap stopped posting on forums, etc). Now with the MLA starting this thread showing a drop in activity, I see you dragging up dead and buried ideologies. Ones that died a well deserved death back then.

I see you making overtures as to vibrance and young people here. One does not equate to the other so why are you making these associations?

Why are you suggesting that the place is dying when it has mant times in the last 6 or so years had times of similar levels or worse inactivity and never died? What is the purpose in stating it is dying?

Why are you inferring that the young people left because of the old or because of the culture?

Are you really just saying that you would like more people that you like here and that you would call them "young"?

I do not understand why you are doing and saying the above but would be very grateful if you could clarify this.

There's no need to play dumb Les. You know Im not suggesting that young people are leaving because of the grumpies. Im suggesting that some of the younger people are leaving, or not sticking around, because there are so few people of their own age, who they might actually want to hang out with.
There is a big difference between what Im saying, and the opinions that you are trying your hardest to ascribe to me.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 11, 2012, 03:28:48 PM
Fortes este, Papiliones!  :viking:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2012, 03:30:23 PM
MLA created a thread where he posted 4 graphs, highlighting how much less active the site now was. He also labeled the thread "A retrospective." It appeared that he was looking for people to discuss the situation, and to look at why the site is faring so badly these days.

As someone who was a very active member of the site, but who now feels it has lost its way, I thought I was in a good position to explain why the site has lost its appeal to me.
I politely gave my opinions on the matter, and now, because yourself, and Les disagree with my opinions, you have spent the next 6 pages hassling me about my opinion.

This is exactly the kind of behavior that I was alluding to in my first couple of posts on this subject. It feels like nobody is allowed to voice an opinion that you and Les disagree with. If I have an opinion that you guys dislike, you appear to just want to hound, and hound away, pushing me to explain every word of what I've said.

But you haven't voiced any actual opinions beyond saying that you want to mix with young people, eventually qualifying it with that no, you don't mean *age-wise*.

And that's it. No explanations, no suggestions, no defining of what makes someone old or young if it isn't age, nothing about what the site should be about, no hints beyond yelling THE SITE IS DYING, THE SITE IS DYING (which incidentally doesn't make it so).

And it's more than a little confusing. And when I don't accept what I find flawed theories at face values, you retort with "this is exactly the kind of behaviour  I was talking about".

No you weren't. We did ask wtf you were on about, and quite politely too, but this is what we get as an answer, not something constructive or even remotely illuminating.

Now, I'm sure you'll put this down as another example of the grumpies clique fighting down the youth, but I really would like you to at least explain that young/old thing. If it isn't about age, then what *is* it about?

And "hassling"? Oh please.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2012, 03:32:28 PM
There's no need to play dumb Les. You know Im not suggesting that young people are leaving because of the grumpies. Im suggesting that some of the younger people are leaving, or not sticking around, because there are so few people of their own age, who they might actually want to hang out with.
There is a big difference between what Im saying, and the opinions that you are trying your hardest to ascribe to me.

Age as in physical years? I'm confused.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 03:34:26 PM
Fortes este, Papiliones!  :viking:

Fortitudinis a facie tyrannidis :viking: :viking:

 :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 11, 2012, 03:34:53 PM
Butterflies means that she wants biologically young people and young-at-heart people like me :toporly:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 11, 2012, 03:36:16 PM
Fortes este, Papiliones!  :viking:

Fortitudinis a facie tyrannidis :viking: :viking:

 :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

Sic semper tyrannis!  :viking: :viking: :viking:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 11, 2012, 03:43:28 PM
Eris left because of Pig, not because of people her own age?
Scrap left because of trying to make some bullshit point about moderation, not people not being his age?
Binty had some issue and meltdown over you or Adam i think? That is how I remember. Wasn't about people being his age or not
EBM is a seasonal poster due to his work which makes internet unavailable to him? Nothing to do with people his own age
Adam is still posting here, as is Schleed.

I have no idea what you are saying about people leaving because of the age of people on here.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 11, 2012, 03:46:15 PM
Okay, from the Grumpiest of the Grumpies:

As far as not being able to post an opinion that Les and odeon do not agree with - This is Intensity.  Aren't we supposed to challenge (or embrace) ideas with passion?  With argument?  With just general bull headedness?  You're able to post and anyone is able to answer. 

As far as drama - I'm not a fan of the treatment Meadow, Penty, Richard, etc. get/got sometimes.  Arguments that I'm not actively involved in scare me, always did, always will.  Yes, I will on the very rare occasion post something that contributes to the argument.  This is something I've always felt, so it's not a Grup vs Only (Grownups vs Onlies, from an old Star Trek episode) thing.

Do I like seeing nudes?  Reading about constipation?  guns?  nudes?  Nope, but I'll either skip the posts, make a joke about them or check on them periodically since so many of the threads go off track and end up somewhere else.  It's my choice to avoid them.

I'll never be young, probably never like the music of the moment or the TV series of the moment, but then, who knows? I've got some good tips from Onlies.  Do we need younger members?  IMHO we need members who can be themselves.  If you can't join at any age and find a spot for yourself, then you might not be Intense.

And BTW, I realize that my QV role playing with CBC is probably wearing on the membership.  We've cut it back considerably recently.

Over and Out.  I've finished making a doddering old fool of myself for now.  And no, I'm not leaving, although, no one has asked.
 
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 11, 2012, 03:59:28 PM
Okay, from the Grumpiest of the Grumpies:

As far as not being able to post an opinion that Les and odeon do not agree with - This is Intensity.  Aren't we supposed to challenge (or embrace) ideas with passion?  With argument?  With just general bull headedness?  You're able to post and anyone is able to answer. 

As far as drama - I'm not a fan of the treatment Meadow, Penty, Richard, etc. get/got sometimes.  Arguments that I'm not actively involved in scare me, always did, always will.  Yes, I will on the very rare occasion post something that contributes to the argument.  This is something I've always felt, so it's not a Grup vs Only (Grownups vs Onlies, from an old Star Trek episode) thing.

Do I like seeing nudes?  Reading about constipation?  guns?  nudes?  Nope, but I'll either skip the posts, make a joke about them or check on them periodically since so many of the threads go off track and end up somewhere else.  It's my choice to avoid them.

I'll never be young, probably never like the music of the moment or the TV series of the moment, but then, who knows? I've got some good tips from Onlies.  Do we need younger members?  IMHO we need members who can be themselves.  If you can't join at any age and find a spot for yourself, then you might not be Intense.

And BTW, I realize that my QV role playing with CBC is probably wearing on the membership.  We've cut it back considerably recently.

Over and Out.  I've finished making a doddering old fool of myself for now.  And no, I'm not leaving, although, no one has asked.

Very wise, milady
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 11, 2012, 04:05:46 PM
Okay, from the Grumpiest of the Grumpies:

As far as not being able to post an opinion that Les and odeon do not agree with - This is Intensity.  Aren't we supposed to challenge (or embrace) ideas with passion?  With argument?  With just general bull headedness?  You're able to post and anyone is able to answer. 

As far as drama - I'm not a fan of the treatment Meadow, Penty, Richard, etc. get/got sometimes.  Arguments that I'm not actively involved in scare me, always did, always will.  Yes, I will on the very rare occasion post something that contributes to the argument.  This is something I've always felt, so it's not a Grup vs Only (Grownups vs Onlies, from an old Star Trek episode) thing.

Do I like seeing nudes?  Reading about constipation?  guns?  nudes?  Nope, but I'll either skip the posts, make a joke about them or check on them periodically since so many of the threads go off track and end up somewhere else.  It's my choice to avoid them.

I'll never be young, probably never like the music of the moment or the TV series of the moment, but then, who knows? I've got some good tips from Onlies.  Do we need younger members?  IMHO we need members who can be themselves.  If you can't join at any age and find a spot for yourself, then you might not be Intense.

And BTW, I realize that my QV role playing with CBC is probably wearing on the membership.  We've cut it back considerably recently.

Over and Out.  I've finished making a doddering old fool of myself for now.  And no, I'm not leaving, although, no one has asked.

Very wise, milady

Uh, what part was wise?  My last 5 sentences?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 11, 2012, 04:17:26 PM
Okay, from the Grumpiest of the Grumpies:

As far as not being able to post an opinion that Les and odeon do not agree with - This is Intensity.  Aren't we supposed to challenge (or embrace) ideas with passion?  With argument?  With just general bull headedness?  You're able to post and anyone is able to answer. 

As far as drama - I'm not a fan of the treatment Meadow, Penty, Richard, etc. get/got sometimes.  Arguments that I'm not actively involved in scare me, always did, always will.  Yes, I will on the very rare occasion post something that contributes to the argument.  This is something I've always felt, so it's not a Grup vs Only (Grownups vs Onlies, from an old Star Trek episode) thing.

Do I like seeing nudes?  Reading about constipation?  guns?  nudes?  Nope, but I'll either skip the posts, make a joke about them or check on them periodically since so many of the threads go off track and end up somewhere else.  It's my choice to avoid them.

I'll never be young, probably never like the music of the moment or the TV series of the moment, but then, who knows? I've got some good tips from Onlies.  Do we need younger members?  IMHO we need members who can be themselves.  If you can't join at any age and find a spot for yourself, then you might not be Intense.

And BTW, I realize that my QV role playing with CBC is probably wearing on the membership.  We've cut it back considerably recently.

Over and Out.  I've finished making a doddering old fool of myself for now.  And no, I'm not leaving, although, no one has asked.

Very wise, milady

Uh, what part was wise?  My last 5 sentences?

Your summation of this place and what it is or isn't and such.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 04:19:10 PM
Okay, from the Grumpiest of the Grumpies:

As far as not being able to post an opinion that Les and odeon do not agree with - This is Intensity.  Aren't we supposed to challenge (or embrace) ideas with passion?  With argument?  With just general bull headedness?  You're able to post and anyone is able to answer. 

As far as drama - I'm not a fan of the treatment Meadow, Penty, Richard, etc. get/got sometimes.  Arguments that I'm not actively involved in scare me, always did, always will.  Yes, I will on the very rare occasion post something that contributes to the argument.  This is something I've always felt, so it's not a Grup vs Only (Grownups vs Onlies, from an old Star Trek episode) thing.

Do I like seeing nudes?  Reading about constipation?  guns?  nudes?  Nope, but I'll either skip the posts, make a joke about them or check on them periodically since so many of the threads go off track and end up somewhere else.  It's my choice to avoid them.

I'll never be young, probably never like the music of the moment or the TV series of the moment, but then, who knows? I've got some good tips from Onlies.  Do we need younger members?  IMHO we need members who can be themselves.  If you can't join at any age and find a spot for yourself, then you might not be Intense.

And BTW, I realize that my QV role playing with CBC is probably wearing on the membership.  We've cut it back considerably recently.

Over and Out.  I've finished making a doddering old fool of myself for now.  And no, I'm not leaving, although, no one has asked.

I was going to reply to Odeons post, but its hard to explain my point to him, so I'll reply to this instead.

It seemed that Odeon and Les were being purposely dumb, but if you've misunderstood me, then I mustnt be explaining myself well at all.

I do not dislike the old people here. Yes, there is at least one I dislike, but that has nothing to do with age. Many of you are among my favorite members. I have never had a problem with your role-playing. I have always enjoyed sharing a board with you, and most of the other older people.
However, much as I like a lot of the older people, I also need some more people of a similar age to myself, whether biological, or emotionally.

And I think you're right. Im just not intense enough for this place anymore.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 04:21:43 PM
Eris left because of Pig, not because of people her own age?
Scrap left because of trying to make some bullshit point about moderation, not people not being his age?
Binty had some issue and meltdown over you or Adam i think? That is how I remember. Wasn't about people being his age or not
EBM is a seasonal poster due to his work which makes internet unavailable to him? Nothing to do with people his own age
Adam is still posting here, as is Schleed.

I have no idea what you are saying about people leaving because of the age of people on here.

They all had their own reasons for leaving. I think the site is a hell of a lot poorer without them.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 04:30:28 PM
MLA created a thread where he posted 4 graphs, highlighting how much less active the site now was. He also labeled the thread "A retrospective." It appeared that he was looking for people to discuss the situation, and to look at why the site is faring so badly these days.

As someone who was a very active member of the site, but who now feels it has lost its way, I thought I was in a good position to explain why the site has lost its appeal to me.
I politely gave my opinions on the matter, and now, because yourself, and Les disagree with my opinions, you have spent the next 6 pages hassling me about my opinion.

This is exactly the kind of behavior that I was alluding to in my first couple of posts on this subject. It feels like nobody is allowed to voice an opinion that you and Les disagree with. If I have an opinion that you guys dislike, you appear to just want to hound, and hound away, pushing me to explain every word of what I've said.

But you haven't voiced any actual opinions beyond saying that you want to mix with young people, eventually qualifying it with that no, you don't mean *age-wise*.

And that's it. No explanations, no suggestions, no defining of what makes someone old or young if it isn't age, nothing about what the site should be about, no hints beyond yelling THE SITE IS DYING, THE SITE IS DYING (which incidentally doesn't make it so).

And it's more than a little confusing. And when I don't accept what I find flawed theories at face values, you retort with "this is exactly the kind of behaviour  I was talking about".

No you weren't. We did ask wtf you were on about, and quite politely too, but this is what we get as an answer, not something constructive or even remotely illuminating.

Now, I'm sure you'll put this down as another example of the grumpies clique fighting down the youth, but I really would like you to at least explain that young/old thing. If it isn't about age, then what *is* it about?

And "hassling"? Oh please.

I suppose its hard to fully explain what Im saying without using people as examples, which is kinda rude. I'll try my best, but without naming names.

Im gonna go out on a limb here and trust that youre genuinely confused by my comments, and not just looking to fight me. Im struggling to think of how to explain this to you, and I might not do a good job.



This board seems to me to be about socializing. We come on here to hang out with our mates. As much as I like many of the older members, I need to have people that are younger as well.
To use your pub analogy, when you were 22, its unlikely youd have been a regular in a pub where all the punters were miles older than you. You might have liked a lot of them, and seen them as friends, but if it didnt have at least a decent amount of people your own age, its unlikely youd be a regular. At least, thats how I feel, and most people I know tend to hang out with people of roughly their own age, more than people of wildly different ages.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 11, 2012, 04:37:12 PM
Okay, from the Grumpiest of the Grumpies:

As far as not being able to post an opinion that Les and odeon do not agree with - This is Intensity.  Aren't we supposed to challenge (or embrace) ideas with passion?  With argument?  With just general bull headedness?  You're able to post and anyone is able to answer. 

As far as drama - I'm not a fan of the treatment Meadow, Penty, Richard, etc. get/got sometimes.  Arguments that I'm not actively involved in scare me, always did, always will.  Yes, I will on the very rare occasion post something that contributes to the argument.  This is something I've always felt, so it's not a Grup vs Only (Grownups vs Onlies, from an old Star Trek episode) thing.

Do I like seeing nudes?  Reading about constipation?  guns?  nudes?  Nope, but I'll either skip the posts, make a joke about them or check on them periodically since so many of the threads go off track and end up somewhere else.  It's my choice to avoid them.

I'll never be young, probably never like the music of the moment or the TV series of the moment, but then, who knows? I've got some good tips from Onlies.  Do we need younger members?  IMHO we need members who can be themselves.  If you can't join at any age and find a spot for yourself, then you might not be Intense.

And BTW, I realize that my QV role playing with CBC is probably wearing on the membership.  We've cut it back considerably recently.

Over and Out.  I've finished making a doddering old fool of myself for now.  And no, I'm not leaving, although, no one has asked.

I was going to reply to Odeons post, but its hard to explain my point to him, so I'll reply to this instead.

It seemed that Odeon and Les were being purposely dumb, but if you've misunderstood me, then I mustnt be explaining myself well at all.

I do not dislike the old people here. Yes, there is at least one I dislike, but that has nothing to do with age. Many of you are among my favorite members. I have never had a problem with your role-playing. I have always enjoyed sharing a board with you, and most of the other older people.
However, much as I like a lot of the older people, I also need some more people of a similar age to myself, whether biological, or emotionally.

And I think you're right. Im just not intense enough for this place anymore.

YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I didn't mean to imply that you should leave.  I like your generally cheery (DO NOT FIX THIS TO CHEESY) attitude and playfulness.  If we go back to posting nudes, will you stay? 
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 11, 2012, 04:39:06 PM

It seemed that Odeon and Les were being purposely dumb

Not at all. It never seemed that way and the only way one would jump to that conclusion is to presume that what I or Odeon was stating in very concrete terms, we were lying about.

People come and people go. Some people are good and some are bad. Some are old and others young.

It would not matter to me how old any of the people here were. If i like them i will like them. If i like it here i will post.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 11, 2012, 04:41:07 PM
I post about important stuff like creating an anarchy society, post in Latin etc, but no one is interested  :thumbdn:

  I don't want anarchy, I like order!   :police:   But I am learning some Latin now.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 11, 2012, 04:45:34 PM
For something completely different, just checked my memory, thought mine was failing.....

People mentioning missing Randy, and the interaction they had with him. Some joined here joined after me. I could not remember ever having encountered Randy on this place, apart from posts he had left behind.

Indeed, last time (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?action=profile;u=71) he was active on this place was December 8 2007.

So, not senile yet.

Randy was online for a few weeks after I joined. Hes not the type Im likely to forget :laugh:

Im sure I just saw a post from you saying that twitter and other more modern social media might be a contributing factor in why there are so few young people now, but I cant find it to quote it.
You could well be right. I cant say I know anything about social media, apart from that it icks me out :laugh: I suppose people have more options for where to spend their time online, and it could be that forums are feeling it the most. It is also true that the "grumpies" are more likely to stay where they are, whilst younger people are more likely to try the new stuff. It could be that this problem is not exclusive to this forum.
I definitely dont think that its the reason why so many young people have stopped posting, but it could certainly be a large part of the reason why so few are coming along to replace them.

Yup, twitter, fb, and lots of other things.

When I2, AFF and WP started, there weren't that many other options. Not for people on the spectrum, and, the internet was still a vast wide place. Now there are so many places to go to and to join. And, the autistic population did not grow just as fast as the options. (despite that wretched epidemic).
It's just like in my village, in 5 years, the number of kids (mainly girls) being a member of the gymnastics club dropped to a third. Not because of the quality of the sports, but, because of the other options arising, within travelling distance, for girls. There's dancing, there's a girls football team. Belly button staring on what went wrong and why people left is not really helpful when done too long. Getting used to being a smaller group from now on, and keeping that as healthy and fun as possible is what there is left to do.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 04:48:14 PM
Okay, from the Grumpiest of the Grumpies:

As far as not being able to post an opinion that Les and odeon do not agree with - This is Intensity.  Aren't we supposed to challenge (or embrace) ideas with passion?  With argument?  With just general bull headedness?  You're able to post and anyone is able to answer. 

As far as drama - I'm not a fan of the treatment Meadow, Penty, Richard, etc. get/got sometimes.  Arguments that I'm not actively involved in scare me, always did, always will.  Yes, I will on the very rare occasion post something that contributes to the argument.  This is something I've always felt, so it's not a Grup vs Only (Grownups vs Onlies, from an old Star Trek episode) thing.

Do I like seeing nudes?  Reading about constipation?  guns?  nudes?  Nope, but I'll either skip the posts, make a joke about them or check on them periodically since so many of the threads go off track and end up somewhere else.  It's my choice to avoid them.

I'll never be young, probably never like the music of the moment or the TV series of the moment, but then, who knows? I've got some good tips from Onlies.  Do we need younger members?  IMHO we need members who can be themselves.  If you can't join at any age and find a spot for yourself, then you might not be Intense.

And BTW, I realize that my QV role playing with CBC is probably wearing on the membership.  We've cut it back considerably recently.

Over and Out.  I've finished making a doddering old fool of myself for now.  And no, I'm not leaving, although, no one has asked.

I was going to reply to Odeons post, but its hard to explain my point to him, so I'll reply to this instead.

It seemed that Odeon and Les were being purposely dumb, but if you've misunderstood me, then I mustnt be explaining myself well at all.

I do not dislike the old people here. Yes, there is at least one I dislike, but that has nothing to do with age. Many of you are among my favorite members. I have never had a problem with your role-playing. I have always enjoyed sharing a board with you, and most of the other older people.
However, much as I like a lot of the older people, I also need some more people of a similar age to myself, whether biological, or emotionally.

And I think you're right. Im just not intense enough for this place anymore.

YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I didn't mean to imply that you should leave.  I like your generally cheery (DO NOT FIX THIS TO CHEESY) attitude and playfulness.  If we go back to posting nudes, will you stay?

Im sorry, I wasnt suggesting that I was leaving because of what you said :laugh:. I wasnt even announcing my departure :-[
I was just agreeing that I really dont fit in here in the slightest anymore, and that's absolutely not because of you. In fact, I'm just sorry that what I thought was a sensible post, giving my honest feelings on why this place appears to be going downhill, has been taken by yourself, and probably others I like, as some kind of criticism, or worse, an attack.

Im obviously not really able to explain myself adequately at all here.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 11, 2012, 04:49:22 PM
You'll come back. Not even shleed escapes shleed's law.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 11, 2012, 04:49:53 PM
Quote from: Butterflies
I think that the site needs to make a serious effort to start to engage with the youth.

This implies a conscious, site-wide policy, which in turn implies moderation. How would you go about achieving this?

I'm not about to apologise for my age, nor will I start acting in any other way than what feels comfortable and right to me. If somebody thinks I'm not young at heart or whatever, quite frankly I could not care less. Also, I'm not about to start treating members differently based on their age, and I'm not about to change the site itself based on some probably misguided conception of what the so-called youth might expect to see here.

Interestingly, no-one's explained what that might be or, conversely, what an old person's topics might consist of.

  1.)  I engage with people of all ages, aided by my own immaturity.  :stick:


  2.)  Adam may be young in years, but he's a cranky old man at heart!    :oldman:



  3.)  Old people love to talk about their fallen arches.  Lately mine are killing me!   :prude:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 11, 2012, 04:55:42 PM

I suppose the terms "oldie" and "youngster" are slightly misleading here. There are some people here who are under 30, but are among the dullest people I've ever encountered, and here are plenty of people in their 40s here who I think are great.

:agreed: I guess it means "young at heart"
Although it GENERALLY corresponds to actual ages, I find

Definitely not always tho. And I include bodie in the "young" group

We oldies want bodie too.  :2thumbsup:
And, we women want bodie too.  :2thumbsup:
Us parents want bodie too.  :2thumbsup:

The girl will get completely worn out, here on I2.

Even the men want bodie too, but there is no way that she fits that category.   :orly:

  Bodie is universally fun, and the cow is beloved as well!   :redneck:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 11, 2012, 04:57:31 PM
@ Butterflies - Wasn't taken as a criticism of me.  Lord knows I've shocked more than one younger member here.  I just wanted to shit stir and  :mischief:  for a change.  Feeling quite contrary lately.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 11, 2012, 04:58:25 PM
Im obviously not really able to explain myself adequately at all here.

Nothing wrong with trying. It's the only way to learn. Difference between "real" life and this place isn't that big. Only that here there may be a little more patience, and blunt reaction, when communication is failing. There is space to try again. And, as long as it doesn't work, people will tell, or ignore. By the time it works, you'll get to hear it too.

Quote
In fact, I'm just sorry that what I thought was a sensible post, giving my honest feelings on why this place appears to be going downhill, has been taken by yourself, and probably others I like, as some kind of criticism, or worse, an attack.

Take a deep breath, have a cup of tea, smile at yourself in the mirror, but, don't feel bad for stirring things up. If you feel bad, because people may take what you say as an attack, then you may trust the resilience of the members, and of yourself not enough. People who take it as an attack are able to defend themselves, and, probably even love it. If you don't want to be treated as an attacker, try to see what they see as an attack, and try to explain yourself better there, telling you did not mean it as an attack.

Nothing wrong with screwing things up now and then.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 11, 2012, 04:59:26 PM
@ Butterflies - Wasn't taken as a criticism of me.  Lord knows I've shocked more than one younger member here.  I just wanted to shit stir and  :mischief:  for a change.  Feeling quite contrary lately.


Ah, you've been enlightened, and have now reached the stage of the glorious old hag?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 05:01:33 PM
For something completely different, just checked my memory, thought mine was failing.....

People mentioning missing Randy, and the interaction they had with him. Some joined here joined after me. I could not remember ever having encountered Randy on this place, apart from posts he had left behind.

Indeed, last time (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?action=profile;u=71) he was active on this place was December 8 2007.

So, not senile yet.

Randy was online for a few weeks after I joined. Hes not the type Im likely to forget :laugh:

Im sure I just saw a post from you saying that twitter and other more modern social media might be a contributing factor in why there are so few young people now, but I cant find it to quote it.
You could well be right. I cant say I know anything about social media, apart from that it icks me out :laugh: I suppose people have more options for where to spend their time online, and it could be that forums are feeling it the most. It is also true that the "grumpies" are more likely to stay where they are, whilst younger people are more likely to try the new stuff. It could be that this problem is not exclusive to this forum.
I definitely dont think that its the reason why so many young people have stopped posting, but it could certainly be a large part of the reason why so few are coming along to replace them.

Yup, twitter, fb, and lots of other things.

When I2, AFF and WP started, there weren't that many other options. Not for people on the spectrum, and, the internet was still a vast wide place. Now there are so many places to go to and to join. And, the autistic population did not grow just as fast as the options. (despite that wretched epidemic).
It's just like in my village, in 5 years, the number of kids (mainly girls) being a member of the gymnastics club dropped to a third. Not because of the quality of the sports, but, because of the other options arising, within travelling distance, for girls. There's dancing, there's a girls football team. Belly button staring on what went wrong and why people left is not really helpful when done too long. Getting used to being a smaller group from now on, and keeping that as healthy and fun as possible is what there is left to do.

I know youre right, and Im certainly not blaming anyone for the lack of new young people. It just saddens me that the place I loved is no longer the same.
I dont mean that in an "aspie scared of change" way.

This will sound truly pathetic to you, but the i2 of april 2010 is my ideal of how an internet forum should be. Its the only forum Ive ever used, and the only one Ive wanted to, not including Zomg or s2. The more the site gets less like it was then, the more frustrated I get with it.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 11, 2012, 05:03:08 PM
@ Butterflies - Wasn't taken as a criticism of me.  Lord knows I've shocked more than one younger member here.  I just wanted to shit stir and  :mischief:  for a change.  Feeling quite contrary lately.


Ah, you've been enlightened, and have now reached the stage of the glorious old hag?

Dont wanna be  :witch1:  Wanna be   :puppy:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 05:06:25 PM
@ Butterflies - Wasn't taken as a criticism of me.  Lord knows I've shocked more than one younger member here.  I just wanted to shit stir and  :mischief:  for a change.  Feeling quite contrary lately.

Theres nothing wrong with being a contrary shit stirrer :angel:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 05:09:45 PM


Take a deep breath, have a cup of tea, smile at yourself in the mirror, but, don't feel bad for stirring things up. If you feel bad, because people may take what you say as an attack, then you may trust the resilience of the members, and of yourself not enough. People who take it as an attack are able to defend themselves, and, probably even love it. If you don't want to be treated as an attacker, try to see what they see as an attack, and try to explain yourself better there, telling you did not mean it as an attack.

Nothing wrong with screwing things up now and then.

Im not worried about stirring things up. I dont even mind causing offence :laugh: I just hate causing offence to the wrong people :-[

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 05:10:00 PM
You'll come back. Not even shleed escapes shleed's law.

I never said I was going anywhere :laugh:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 11, 2012, 05:14:20 PM
LOL, missed a whole page, in this debate.

A forum is a thing that slowly may get outdated. Newer social media are a lot faster, quicker, and, more social. And, that may be why "the young" are not joining in big numbers on I2.

Im not sure that rebranding is the answer, but I do feel that the site is badly struggling right now. Im sure that different people will have different ideas on where its all gone wrong, and I'm also sure that there will be some who prefer the site as it is now.
Clearly the active membership has declined over the last year or so, and that does coincide with the time that a large amount of younger members stopped posting, or left altogether.
I can also say that as a young person myself, the relative absence of other young people on the site is the main reason why I think I dont find the site very interesting these days.

CBC's declining posting average is a bigger factor, tbh. As for "struggling", post something that you find interesting or something you think your age group might find interesting. Nothing is stopping you.

Someone needs to kick that Weeble in the ass.

      OW ! :cbc: I'm posting, I'm posting!
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 11, 2012, 05:22:16 PM
This will sound truly pathetic to you, but the i2 of april 2010 is my ideal of how an internet forum should be. Its the only forum Ive ever used, and the only one Ive wanted to, not including Zomg or s2. The more the site gets less like it was then, the more frustrated I get with it.

Not that pathetic.

But, the site is alive, it changes, and will keep on changing.

Hope you can let the ideal image be a good memory, and be able to see what good there is now in this place. And, also what is lousy of course. It isn't what it was in 2010. You are not what you were in 2010. Even if a miracle could change this place back to what it was then, it would not be the same, because you have changed.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 11, 2012, 05:32:48 PM
For something completely different, just checked my memory, thought mine was failing.....

People mentioning missing Randy, and the interaction they had with him. Some joined here joined after me. I could not remember ever having encountered Randy on this place, apart from posts he had left behind.

Indeed, last time (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?action=profile;u=71) he was active on this place was December 8 2007.

So, not senile yet.

Randy was online for a few weeks after I joined. Hes not the type Im likely to forget :laugh:

Im sure I just saw a post from you saying that twitter and other more modern social media might be a contributing factor in why there are so few young people now, but I cant find it to quote it.
You could well be right. I cant say I know anything about social media, apart from that it icks me out :laugh: I suppose people have more options for where to spend their time online, and it could be that forums are feeling it the most. It is also true that the "grumpies" are more likely to stay where they are, whilst younger people are more likely to try the new stuff. It could be that this problem is not exclusive to this forum.
I definitely dont think that its the reason why so many young people have stopped posting, but it could certainly be a large part of the reason why so few are coming along to replace them.

Yup, twitter, fb, and lots of other things.

When I2, AFF and WP started, there weren't that many other options. Not for people on the spectrum, and, the internet was still a vast wide place. Now there are so many places to go to and to join. And, the autistic population did not grow just as fast as the options. (despite that wretched epidemic).
It's just like in my village, in 5 years, the number of kids (mainly girls) being a member of the gymnastics club dropped to a third. Not because of the quality of the sports, but, because of the other options arising, within travelling distance, for girls. There's dancing, there's a girls football team. Belly button staring on what went wrong and why people left is not really helpful when done too long. Getting used to being a smaller group from now on, and keeping that as healthy and fun as possible is what there is left to do.

I know youre right, and Im certainly not blaming anyone for the lack of new young people. It just saddens me that the place I loved is no longer the same.
I dont mean that in an "aspie scared of change" way.

This will sound truly pathetic to you, but the i2 of april 2010 is my ideal of how an internet forum should be. Its the only forum Ive ever used, and the only one Ive wanted to, not including Zomg or s2. The more the site gets less like it was then, the more frustrated I get with it.

I thought back in April 2010, that a new member called Butterflies seemed pretty good value. Fiesty, fun, smart, active and interesting.  People change, opinions change and times move on.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 11, 2012, 05:49:40 PM
You'll come back. Not even shleed escapes shleed's law.

I never said I was going anywhere :laugh:

Oh. :autism:

I might make a forum or try and maintain contact with you lot outside i2, ie. Skype. The only reason I went on here again is the lack of interaction with people I actually like.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 11, 2012, 05:51:37 PM
You'll come back. Not even shleed escapes shleed's law.

I never said I was going anywhere :laugh:

Oh. :autism:

I might make a forum or try and maintain contact with you lot outside i2, ie. Skype. The only reason I went on here again is the lack of interaction with people I actually like.

  Might Crip be rejoining here?  :orly:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 06:02:20 PM
This will sound truly pathetic to you, but the i2 of april 2010 is my ideal of how an internet forum should be. Its the only forum Ive ever used, and the only one Ive wanted to, not including Zomg or s2. The more the site gets less like it was then, the more frustrated I get with it.

Not that pathetic.

But, the site is alive, it changes, and will keep on changing.

Hope you can let the ideal image be a good memory, and be able to see what good there is now in this place. And, also what is lousy of course. It isn't what it was in 2010. You are not what you were in 2010. Even if a miracle could change this place back to what it was then, it would not be the same, because you have changed.

Ive thought about that dilemma a few times. I know that I should leave this site while its still a great memory. Remember it as the place that helped me through the hardest time of my adult life, and be glad that I was here through the "golden years" :laugh:
Other times, I just want to come back and try and make the site be good again :facepalm2: And if it isnt going to be good again, then it needs :whipped: :dom:

I know what I should do, but I just know that every so often Im gonna do the stupid thing :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 11, 2012, 06:23:25 PM
Quote from: Butterflies
I think that the site needs to make a serious effort to start to engage with the youth.

This implies a conscious, site-wide policy, which in turn implies moderation. How would you go about achieving this?

I'm not about to apologise for my age, nor will I start acting in any other way than what feels comfortable and right to me. If somebody thinks I'm not young at heart or whatever, quite frankly I could not care less. Also, I'm not about to start treating members differently based on their age, and I'm not about to change the site itself based on some probably misguided conception of what the so-called youth might expect to see here.

Interestingly, no-one's explained what that might be or, conversely, what an old person's topics might consist of.

  1.)  I engage with people of all ages, aided by my own immaturity.  :stick:


  2.)  Adam may be young in years, but he's a cranky old man at heart!  *  :oldman:



  3.)  Old people love to talk about their fallen arches.  Lately mine are killing me!   :prude:


  * I mean that in the best way, Adam suffers no fools.  8)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 11, 2012, 06:40:49 PM
This will sound truly pathetic to you, but the i2 of april 2010 is my ideal of how an internet forum should be. Its the only forum Ive ever used, and the only one Ive wanted to, not including Zomg or s2. The more the site gets less like it was then, the more frustrated I get with it.

Not that pathetic.

But, the site is alive, it changes, and will keep on changing.

Hope you can let the ideal image be a good memory, and be able to see what good there is now in this place. And, also what is lousy of course. It isn't what it was in 2010. You are not what you were in 2010. Even if a miracle could change this place back to what it was then, it would not be the same, because you have changed.

Ive thought about that dilemma a few times. I know that I should leave this site while its still a great memory. Remember it as the place that helped me through the hardest time of my adult life, and be glad that I was here through the "golden years" :laugh:
Other times, I just want to come back and try and make the site be good again :facepalm2: And if it isnt going to be good again, then it needs :whipped: :dom:

I know what I should do, but I just know that every so often Im gonna do the stupid thing :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2:

I think that this place is what it is now. Back then it is what it was then. It does not need fixing any more than it needing fixing then. It was the sum of its experience and its membership direction, it is the same now.
It is simply different to what it was then.
I would have preferred the Bint, Eris, Scrap, Squiddy and Butterflies of then to the same now. People change though and that is OK.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 11, 2012, 06:42:40 PM
This will sound truly pathetic to you, but the i2 of april 2010 is my ideal of how an internet forum should be. Its the only forum Ive ever used, and the only one Ive wanted to, not including Zomg or s2. The more the site gets less like it was then, the more frustrated I get with it.

Not that pathetic.

But, the site is alive, it changes, and will keep on changing.

Hope you can let the ideal image be a good memory, and be able to see what good there is now in this place. And, also what is lousy of course. It isn't what it was in 2010. You are not what you were in 2010. Even if a miracle could change this place back to what it was then, it would not be the same, because you have changed.

Ive thought about that dilemma a few times. I know that I should leave this site while its still a great memory. Remember it as the place that helped me through the hardest time of my adult life, and be glad that I was here through the "golden years" :laugh:
Other times, I just want to come back and try and make the site be good again :facepalm2: And if it isnt going to be good again, then it needs :whipped: :dom:

I know what I should do, but I just know that every so often Im gonna do the stupid thing :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2:

I think that this place is what it is now. Back then it is what it was then. It does not need fixing any more than it needing fixing then. It was the sum of its experience and its membership direction, it is the same now.
It is simply different to what it was then.
I would have preferred the Bint, Eris, Scrap, Squiddy and Butterflies of then to the same now. People change though and that is OK.

  You can never step in the same river twice, be at peace with it.    :meditate:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 07:11:49 PM
You'll come back. Not even shleed escapes shleed's law.

I never said I was going anywhere :laugh:

Oh. :autism:

I might make a forum or try and maintain contact with you lot outside i2, ie. Skype. The only reason I went on here again is the lack of interaction with people I actually like.

I would hugely love to keep in contact, but Skype would kill me. I cant even manage MSN. Forums seem to suit my social anxiety :laugh:
Zomg still exists. If you just wanted a little forum to hang out with your mates on, it could be used.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: MissKitty on November 11, 2012, 07:30:04 PM
I have a weak spot for Squiddy.

I don't think he left out of boredom though.





I never saw Scrappy as young.....


EBM comes and goes, he always did, he probably always will. Nice to see him when he pops up though.
:agreed:

And EBM will always come and go. Being gone more during his busy season at work and back when he's in the off season. He puts in a lot of hours at work.

As everything else, it always goes in cycles. It will pick up and it will drop off again.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 11, 2012, 07:32:07 PM
I have a weak spot for Squiddy.

I don't think he left out of boredom though.





I never saw Scrappy as young.....


EBM comes and goes, he always did, he probably always will. Nice to see him when he pops up though.
:agreed:

And EBM will always come and go. Being gone more during his busy season at work and back when he's in the off season. He puts in a lot of hours at work.

As everything else, it always goes in cycles. It will pick up and it will drop off again.

  PPK is the same way.  I think he needs to straighten out his priorities.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 11, 2012, 07:50:21 PM
You'll come back. Not even shleed escapes shleed's law.

I never said I was going anywhere :laugh:

Oh. :autism:

I might make a forum or try and maintain contact with you lot outside i2, ie. Skype. The only reason I went on here again is the lack of interaction with people I actually like.

I would hugely love to keep in contact, but Skype would kill me. I cant even manage MSN. Forums seem to suit my social anxiety :laugh:
Zomg still exists. If you just wanted a little forum to hang out with your mates on, it could be used.

I shyed away from ZOMG since no one really posted. I tried to talk to people via email but that didn't work either.

I was thinking of maybe forming a facebook group for us lot, that way we can have a somewhat forum-like experience while keeping it a bit social too. Thoughts?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 11, 2012, 07:53:55 PM
You'll come back. Not even shleed escapes shleed's law.

I never said I was going anywhere :laugh:

Oh. :autism:

I might make a forum or try and maintain contact with you lot outside i2, ie. Skype. The only reason I went on here again is the lack of interaction with people I actually like.

I would hugely love to keep in contact, but Skype would kill me. I cant even manage MSN. Forums seem to suit my social anxiety :laugh:
Zomg still exists. If you just wanted a little forum to hang out with your mates on, it could be used.

I shyed away from ZOMG since no one really posted. I tried to talk to people via email but that didn't work either.

I was thinking of maybe forming a facebook group for us lot, that way we can have a somewhat forum-like experience while keeping it a bit social too. Thoughts?

  I would join a Facebook Intensity group!  :headbang2:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 11, 2012, 08:14:19 PM
And I didnt forget about Calavera.

You didn't mention him, so it was a fair assumption to make.

No, because (again) you're missing the point - Butterflies is not seperating the membership into under 30s and over 30s

You are missing my point, which is that Butterflies did in fact not mention Calavera. Bloody spazz.

Yeah, she didn;tr mention Calavera - BECAUSE she's not just mentioning all the under 30s.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 11, 2012, 08:17:30 PM
And yes, me and Schleed are still posting, but not much. I come here out of habit mainly. I no longer think of this place as a forum I properly contribute to. Can't speak for Schleed, but from what he;s posted in the past, I'm guessing he too finds the place kinda boring these days as well

So yeah, while I haven't left, I definitely don't consider myself a properly active member anymore. Maybe a little more this week to post about the election etc, but generally, no. If I hadn't been here for so many years and wasn't so used to checking it every day, I probably wouldn't be here at all
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 11, 2012, 08:25:48 PM
I'd join a facebook group, but would prefer it be "secret" - lol iirc that's the term facebook use, not mine - as I'd rather keep it seperate so my posts in there don't show up to IRL people and family.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 08:34:43 PM
You'll come back. Not even shleed escapes shleed's law.

I never said I was going anywhere :laugh:

Oh. :autism:

I might make a forum or try and maintain contact with you lot outside i2, ie. Skype. The only reason I went on here again is the lack of interaction with people I actually like.

I would hugely love to keep in contact, but Skype would kill me. I cant even manage MSN. Forums seem to suit my social anxiety :laugh:
Zomg still exists. If you just wanted a little forum to hang out with your mates on, it could be used.

I shyed away from ZOMG since no one really posted. I tried to talk to people via email but that didn't work either.

I was thinking of maybe forming a facebook group for us lot, that way we can have a somewhat forum-like experience while keeping it a bit social too. Thoughts?

That might be a good idea. Im locked out of my FB account, but if you do this, I'll create a new one.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 11, 2012, 08:36:32 PM
Is there an Assbook?  Since everyone's rear pretty much looks alike we'd be assured of anonymity. 
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 08:38:58 PM
I'd join a facebook group, but would prefer it be "secret" - lol iirc that's the term facebook use, not mine - as I'd rather keep it seperate so my posts in there don't show up to IRL people and family.

Create a separate spazz account. If I had a real FB account with my non spazz mates on it, there's no way I would let you guys on it :asthing: :asthing:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 11, 2012, 08:41:49 PM
Is there an Assbook?  Since everyone's rear pretty much looks alike we'd be assured of anonymity. 

Yes.
http://www.ass-book.com/ (http://www.ass-book.com/)

But I think Nudebook looks more fun :bounce:
http://baredanmark.dk/lang-en/nyheder-othermenu-64/1-nyeste/111-nudebook (http://baredanmark.dk/lang-en/nyheder-othermenu-64/1-nyeste/111-nudebook)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 11, 2012, 09:40:05 PM
Is there an Assbook?  Since everyone's rear pretty much looks alike we'd be assured of anonymity. 

Yes.
http://www.ass-book.com/ (http://www.ass-book.com/)

But I think Nudebook looks more fun :bounce:
http://baredanmark.dk/lang-en/nyheder-othermenu-64/1-nyeste/111-nudebook (http://baredanmark.dk/lang-en/nyheder-othermenu-64/1-nyeste/111-nudebook)

There, you see younger members ARE useful.  Now we know where to go. 

I don't know why you were going on about banning them as new members.  REAL HEAVY Irony, sarcasm or whatever there. 
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 11, 2012, 09:54:28 PM
I'd join a facebook group, but would prefer it be "secret" - lol iirc that's the term facebook use, not mine - as I'd rather keep it seperate so my posts in there don't show up to IRL people and family.

It would indeed be secret. I need an outlet for my rants anyway.

I help admin a college group for me and my friends, which is also secret. Can't have lecturers snooping there, and so far they don't even know it exists.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 11, 2012, 10:01:21 PM
Just created it. It's invite only and complete secret, so let me know on facebook and I'll add you. Any members can add anyone they know too.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 12:16:36 AM
I was going to reply to Odeons post, but its hard to explain my point to him, so I'll reply to this instead.

It seemed that Odeon and Les were being purposely dumb, but if you've misunderstood me, then I mustnt be explaining myself well at all.

I do not dislike the old people here. Yes, there is at least one I dislike, but that has nothing to do with age. Many of you are among my favorite members. I have never had a problem with your role-playing. I have always enjoyed sharing a board with you, and most of the other older people.
However, much as I like a lot of the older people, I also need some more people of a similar age to myself, whether biological, or emotionally.

And I think you're right. Im just not intense enough for this place anymore.

"Purposefully dumb"?

Still waiting for your definitions/explanations re age. Should I grab my overnight kit?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 12, 2012, 12:29:20 AM
I was going to reply to Odeons post, but its hard to explain my point to him, so I'll reply to this instead.

It seemed that Odeon and Les were being purposely dumb, but if you've misunderstood me, then I mustnt be explaining myself well at all.

I do not dislike the old people here. Yes, there is at least one I dislike, but that has nothing to do with age. Many of you are among my favorite members. I have never had a problem with your role-playing. I have always enjoyed sharing a board with you, and most of the other older people.
However, much as I like a lot of the older people, I also need some more people of a similar age to myself, whether biological, or emotionally.

And I think you're right. Im just not intense enough for this place anymore.

"Purposefully dumb"?

Still waiting for your definitions/explanations re age. Should I grab my overnight kit?

Not at all. It never seemed that way and the only way one would jump to that conclusion is to presume that what I or Odeon was stating in very concrete terms, we were lying about.

I was not lying and I can only assume that you weren't. We were both pretty clear with our statements, assertions and questions. So now as it clearly was not dumb nor a purposeful avoidance....back to you Butterflies

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 12:30:04 AM
This board seems to me to be about socializing. We come on here to hang out with our mates. As much as I like many of the older members, I need to have people that are younger as well.
To use your pub analogy, when you were 22, its unlikely youd have been a regular in a pub where all the punters were miles older than you. You might have liked a lot of them, and seen them as friends, but if it didnt have at least a decent amount of people your own age, its unlikely youd be a regular. At least, thats how I feel, and most people I know tend to hang out with people of roughly their own age, more than people of wildly different ages.

You've done this part a few times and much as I'd like to nod in agreement, I can't because it's as confusing as the rest and I'm beginning to think that you are actively avoiding my question. See, the above might work as an explanation if it was about physical age. I'd think "fine, she wants to hang out with other 20-yo's or whatever her age is". No biggie.

But then Adam chimes in and says that me and Les are being deliberately obtuse (my choice of words) because it's not about physical age. And so me the rationalist wants to know what it is about, then. How is "young" defined in this case? How is "old" explained? (Sort of beside the point but I never knew I was "old" until this thread.)

Some members are mentioned by name, of which a few are posting still and others have left for various reasons. These members are mostly physically younger than I am, but some are in their 40s and I'm struggling to understand what it is that they do that is "young", so I ask again.

I also ask if this young/old thing is more about grouping people in likes/dislikes, which also is fine but this is left without comment, too.

But no answers, no explanations. Just that deliberately dumb thing.

I don't know what to think. Except that it creates drama which creates posts.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 12:34:15 AM
You'll come back. Not even shleed escapes shleed's law.

I never said I was going anywhere :laugh:

Oh. :autism:

I might make a forum or try and maintain contact with you lot outside i2, ie. Skype. The only reason I went on here again is the lack of interaction with people I actually like.

IMO this place would be poorer without you.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 12:47:30 AM
Having now read the rest of the thread, I can't help comparing it with some incidents in the past when some people were bitching about I2 and formed Zomg or S2 or some such grouping. It's an FB group this time, and the similarities are noteworthy.

There is no attempt to explain the whys or to start a thread about something they want to read and talk about. Nothing about what doesn't work. Nothing to change anything, only to bitch about the place and some of its "old" people, without naming or explaining or otherwise qualifying.

I'd think it was easier to simply say that you want to hang you with people you like. That's what I do, here.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 12, 2012, 01:20:45 AM
Having now read the rest of the thread, I can't help comparing it with some incidents in the past when some people were bitching about I2 and formed Zomg or S2 or some such grouping. It's an FB group this time, and the similarities are noteworthy.

There is no attempt to explain the whys or to start a thread about something they want to read and talk about. Nothing about what doesn't work. Nothing to change anything, only to bitch about the place and some of its "old" people, without naming or explaining or otherwise qualifying.

I'd think it was easier to simply say that you want to hang you with people you like. That's what I do, here.

Just a few things and at risk of repeating myself over and over, I think I would like to have this clarified.

If you are not talking  young or old in biological terms then what is the term you are associating with young and old?
If it is emotional or mental, then what is your term of reference? How do you measure against their actual age and their (emotional/mental?) age? How do you measure them up against others? What aspects of them do you configure their "age" against (apart from how they type on a keyboard)?

These are serious questions because of this.

There was a time that you and Adam and Squid in particular decided to go to extreme lengths to drive a propaganda campaign here about this place being crap, that there were too many older people, that the older people were no good and the site was failing, that the older people were part of a clique and so on. The answer was to encourage everyone who was young (and cool) to leave here and go to Spasticity and later to Zomgreloaded). When you started getting back up early in the piece by Scrap and a couple of the others who were older you all welcomed them in and amended earlier comments to allow young at heart or some such.
The sites did not do so well. The young clique broke down a bit. (Eris and Bint had a falling out and Squiddy and Scrap stopped posting on forums, etc). Now with the MLA starting this thread showing a drop in activity, I see you dragging up dead and buried ideologies. Ones that died a well deserved death back then.

I see you making overtures as to vibrance and young people here. One does not equate to the other so why are you making these associations?

Why are you suggesting that the place is dying when it has mant times in the last 6 or so years had times of similar levels or worse inactivity and never died? What is the purpose in stating it is dying?

Why are you inferring that the young people left because of the old or because of the culture?

Are you really just saying that you would like more people that you like here and that you would call them "young"?

I do not understand why you are doing and saying the above but would be very grateful if you could clarify this.

Yup that is what I was wondering too and trying to get clarified
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 12, 2012, 03:15:50 AM
FB, I keep thinking about leaving it completely time and time again. It's not really my thing. Too confusing. :P An I2 group on FB, I would not be active there. Am a member of the spectrumites group there, but, going there, I get lost. The structure is gone for me.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 12, 2012, 03:45:05 AM
This will sound truly pathetic to you, but the i2 of april 2010 is my ideal of how an internet forum should be. Its the only forum Ive ever used, and the only one Ive wanted to, not including Zomg or s2. The more the site gets less like it was then, the more frustrated I get with it.

Not that pathetic.

But, the site is alive, it changes, and will keep on changing.

Hope you can let the ideal image be a good memory, and be able to see what good there is now in this place. And, also what is lousy of course. It isn't what it was in 2010. You are not what you were in 2010. Even if a miracle could change this place back to what it was then, it would not be the same, because you have changed.

Ive thought about that dilemma a few times. I know that I should leave this site while its still a great memory. Remember it as the place that helped me through the hardest time of my adult life, and be glad that I was here through the "golden years" :laugh:
Other times, I just want to come back and try and make the site be good again :facepalm2: And if it isnt going to be good again, then it needs :whipped: :dom:

I know what I should do, but I just know that every so often Im gonna do the stupid thing :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2:

It will never be what it was back then.

You were at a mess stage in your life, and you came on a site where you felt recognised and welcome.
I had that when I joined AFF. When I go there now, to have a look, I can see it can provide a similar relief as it did for me then, but, I have changed. And, I have my own reasons to not try it again there.

You will not be in that way you were when you joined here again.

This place is what it is now. It will be different in a few months, and different a few months after that too.

If you can let go the longing for back then, then you may find this place your place again. Never the fierce way it was before.
The feeling of I2 for you in 2010 was there, because of the way you were in life. And, you don't want to go back there I hope.

Maybe I2 then was what you needed then, and that was it. Then it can be something you can look back on with a smile, of a good thing, that passed, but was there.
Maybe it will be something for you again. But, it never ever will be what it was again, and trying to go back to the good old days is not going to work. They are gone. Time does pass. Things can be gone for ever.

Maybe in this youth can make a difference. The oldies have had to come to accept that change will happen, and that longing for times past, when everything was better, is useless.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 12, 2012, 06:51:34 AM
I fall in and out with FB.  I only go there to play the games.

I don't know if an arcade would be welcomed by the younger ones.  I thought the one at zomg was good and it seemed to be used a lot.  I think Odeon said it wasn't possible at the time when i asked him about having one here.

It is the only alteration i can think of that might be of interest to the young ones.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 06:54:57 AM
I fall in and out with FB.  I only go there to play the games.

I don't know if an arcade would be welcomed by the younger ones.  I thought the one at zomg was good and it seemed to be used a lot.  I think Odeon said it wasn't possible at the time when i asked him about having one here.

It is the only alteration i can think of that might be of interest to the young ones.

The game mod wasn't suitable for SMF v2, the last time I looked. I could check again. :dunno:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 12, 2012, 07:01:13 AM
I fall in and out with FB.  I only go there to play the games.

I don't know if an arcade would be welcomed by the younger ones.  I thought the one at zomg was good and it seemed to be used a lot.  I think Odeon said it wasn't possible at the time when i asked him about having one here.

It is the only alteration i can think of that might be of interest to the young ones.

The game mod wasn't suitable for SMF v2, the last time I looked. I could check again. :dunno:

Woooohoooo
you moved pretty swift for an old 'un then? ;)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 07:01:51 AM
I fall in and out with FB.  I only go there to play the games.

I don't know if an arcade would be welcomed by the younger ones.  I thought the one at zomg was good and it seemed to be used a lot.  I think Odeon said it wasn't possible at the time when i asked him about having one here.

It is the only alteration i can think of that might be of interest to the young ones.

The game mod wasn't suitable for SMF v2, the last time I looked. I could check again. :dunno:

Woooohoooo
you moved pretty swift for an old 'un then? ;)

Sorry, what were we talking about? :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 12, 2012, 07:03:13 AM
...and i am not even sure if that would help.

I might appear to be altruistic,  but the truth is i just want the games for myself :zoinks:

me me me me me me me me me
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 12, 2012, 07:04:45 AM
I don't know  :asthing:

just some silly games i think
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 07:05:43 AM
Just checked. The Arcade mod has not been updated in a while. :(
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 12, 2012, 07:08:27 AM
...and i am not even sure if that would help.

I might appear to be altruistic,  but the truth is i just want the games for myself :zoinks:

me me me me me me me me me

  But that's a good thing, self-interest can move mountains!   :2thumbsup:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 07:14:18 AM
Mostly the smaller ones, though. :P
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 12, 2012, 07:21:26 AM
Mostly the smaller ones, though. :P

  It's a start.  As we grow in selfishness, we will grow in strength!   :arrr:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 07:22:44 AM
Mostly the smaller ones, though. :P

  It's a start.  As we grow in selfishness, we will grow in strength!   :arrr:

I'm moving Mount Everest! :arrr:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 12, 2012, 07:24:05 AM
Mostly the smaller ones, though. :P

  It's a start.  As we grow in selfishness, we will grow in strength!   :arrr:

I'm moving Mount Everest! :arrr:

Where will you put it?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 07:25:20 AM
Mostly the smaller ones, though. :P

  It's a start.  As we grow in selfishness, we will grow in strength!   :arrr:

I'm moving Mount Everest! :arrr:

Where will you put it?

On the Netherlands. You people need a proper hill. :P
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 12, 2012, 07:27:29 AM
Mostly the smaller ones, though. :P

  It's a start.  As we grow in selfishness, we will grow in strength!   :arrr:

I'm moving Mount Everest! :arrr:

Where will you put it?

On the Netherlands. You people need a proper hill. :P

    :evilplus:    They won't know what that strange thing is in their field of vision!

           Then they'll try to climb it in their klompen!   :rofl:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 12, 2012, 07:29:35 AM
Mostly the smaller ones, though. :P

  It's a start.  As we grow in selfishness, we will grow in strength!   :arrr:

I'm moving Mount Everest! :arrr:

Where will you put it?

On the Netherlands. You people need a proper hill. :P

Will you warn in advance. Takes a bit of space, that thing.

And, with the depth of our country, the height of the Mount Everest may decrease significantly indeed.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 07:29:57 AM
:rofl:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 12, 2012, 07:31:44 AM
  Now I'm picturing Everest as a gently rolling hill, sunk deep into the water
   and covered with brightly colored tulips and some jolly windmills!   :rofl:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 07:32:22 AM
A different kind of challenge for the climbers. :rofl:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 12, 2012, 07:43:04 AM
Never really understood man's need to climb mountains.

Big thing in the way,  just go around it.  Seems logical.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 07:50:55 AM
Agreed. I don't understand why you'd want to risk your life to reach the top of a bloody rock. One would think that inn the case of Mt Everest, the numerous corpses on the way up (an back down again) might somehow deter the nutters but nope, instead more are added every year.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 12, 2012, 08:07:28 AM
I like climbing for the challenge and the excuse to get out in the middle of nowhere.

Not Everest though. What's the fun when there's a queue to go up that lasts all summer?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 12, 2012, 08:11:51 AM
  If I want to see the view atop a mountain, I watch the National Geographic Channel!   :tv:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 12, 2012, 10:02:09 AM
Successful thread is successful :)

I was just complaining that I haven't had any noobs to abuse for a while :(
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 10:23:49 AM
Successful thread is successful :)

I was just complaining that I haven't had any noobs to abuse for a while :(

Plenty of people to abuse here. Must it be n00bs? :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 12, 2012, 10:35:04 AM
Successful thread is successful :)

I was just complaining that I haven't had any noobs to abuse for a while :(

Plenty of people to abuse here. Must it be n00bs? :zoinks:

No, but they are an added delight.  I love when they come in thinking this place is a gladiatorial arena and fall on their face.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 10:54:43 AM
I agree, fresh meat is always nice.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 12, 2012, 03:21:59 PM
This board seems to me to be about socializing. We come on here to hang out with our mates. As much as I like many of the older members, I need to have people that are younger as well.
To use your pub analogy, when you were 22, its unlikely youd have been a regular in a pub where all the punters were miles older than you. You might have liked a lot of them, and seen them as friends, but if it didnt have at least a decent amount of people your own age, its unlikely youd be a regular. At least, thats how I feel, and most people I know tend to hang out with people of roughly their own age, more than people of wildly different ages.

You've done this part a few times and much as I'd like to nod in agreement, I can't because it's as confusing as the rest and I'm beginning to think that you are actively avoiding my question. See, the above might work as an explanation if it was about physical age. I'd think "fine, she wants to hang out with other 20-yo's or whatever her age is". No biggie.

But then Adam chimes in and says that me and Les are being deliberately obtuse (my choice of words) because it's not about physical age. And so me the rationalist wants to know what it is about, then. How is "young" defined in this case? How is "old" explained? (Sort of beside the point but I never knew I was "old" until this thread.)

Some members are mentioned by name, of which a few are posting still and others have left for various reasons. These members are mostly physically younger than I am, but some are in their 40s and I'm struggling to understand what it is that they do that is "young", so I ask again.

I also ask if this young/old thing is more about grouping people in likes/dislikes, which also is fine but this is left without comment, too.

But no answers, no explanations. Just that deliberately dumb thing.

I don't know what to think. Except that it creates drama which creates posts.

TBH, some people fully get what I mean, and others dont. If you dont get it, then I doubt if you'll ever understand, no matter how many times I try to explain.

You have me, Adam, and Schleed. 3 of the few young people left on your site, all telling you more or less the same thing. That the site now holds no interest for us, to the extent that none of us really seem to be happy here.
Your main concern appears to be winning this "argument" with me. For me, that just totally sums up what this site has become.

You keep bringing up the failure of Zomg and s2. All Zomg and s2 really prove is that a decent chunk of the membership here are so dissatisfied with this place that they feel the need to try to create a new place to hang out.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 12, 2012, 03:24:32 PM
I liked ZOMG. Was it Buttcoffee who fucked it up?  :(
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 12, 2012, 03:25:14 PM
You have me, Adam, and Schleed. 3 of the few young people left on your site, all telling you more or less the same thing. That the site now holds no interest for us

I must have missed where Schleed and Adam said that.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 12, 2012, 03:38:45 PM
You have me, Adam, and Schleed. 3 of the few young people left on your site, all telling you more or less the same thing. That the site now holds no interest for us

I must have missed where Schleed and Adam said that.


And yes, me and Schleed are still posting, but not much. I come here out of habit mainly. I no longer think of this place as a forum I properly contribute to. Can't speak for Schleed, but from what he;s posted in the past, I'm guessing he too finds the place kinda boring these days as well

So yeah, while I haven't left, I definitely don't consider myself a properly active member anymore. Maybe a little more this week to post about the election etc, but generally, no. If I hadn't been here for so many years and wasn't so used to checking it every day, I probably wouldn't be here at all


You'll come back. Not even shleed escapes shleed's law.

I never said I was going anywhere :laugh:

Oh. :autism:

I might make a forum or try and maintain contact with you lot outside i2, ie. Skype. The only reason I went on here again is the lack of interaction with people I actually like.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 12, 2012, 03:44:44 PM
You have me, Adam, and Schleed. 3 of the few young people left on your site, all telling you more or less the same thing. That the site now holds no interest for us

I must have missed where Schleed and Adam said that.


And yes, me and Schleed are still posting, but not much. I come here out of habit mainly. I no longer think of this place as a forum I properly contribute to. Can't speak for Schleed, but from what he;s posted in the past, I'm guessing he too finds the place kinda boring these days as well

So yeah, while I haven't left, I definitely don't consider myself a properly active member anymore. Maybe a little more this week to post about the election etc, but generally, no. If I hadn't been here for so many years and wasn't so used to checking it every day, I probably wouldn't be here at all


You'll come back. Not even shleed escapes shleed's law.

I never said I was going anywhere :laugh:

Oh. :autism:

I might make a forum or try and maintain contact with you lot outside i2, ie. Skype. The only reason I went on here again is the lack of interaction with people I actually like.

I don't see "the site holds no interest for me" in any of those posts.  Even if you are claiming this yourself, your continued posting in this thread shows that isn't actually the case. :)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 12, 2012, 03:57:17 PM
Adam, Butterflies and Shleed.

I've been starting what I thought were interesting/thoughtful/intense threads that might appeal to a younger crowd.  Evidently I'm way out of touch.  How about helping a rapidly aging Queen out here and start some threads that you think would work?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 12, 2012, 03:58:44 PM
You have me, Adam, and Schleed. 3 of the few young people left on your site, all telling you more or less the same thing. That the site now holds no interest for us

I must have missed where Schleed and Adam said that.


And yes, me and Schleed are still posting, but not much. I come here out of habit mainly. I no longer think of this place as a forum I properly contribute to. Can't speak for Schleed, but from what he;s posted in the past, I'm guessing he too finds the place kinda boring these days as well

So yeah, while I haven't left, I definitely don't consider myself a properly active member anymore. Maybe a little more this week to post about the election etc, but generally, no. If I hadn't been here for so many years and wasn't so used to checking it every day, I probably wouldn't be here at all


You'll come back. Not even shleed escapes shleed's law.

I never said I was going anywhere :laugh:

Oh. :autism:

I might make a forum or try and maintain contact with you lot outside i2, ie. Skype. The only reason I went on here again is the lack of interaction with people I actually like.

I don't see "the site holds no interest for me" in any of those posts.  Even if you are claiming this yourself, your continued posting in this thread shows that isn't actually the case. :)

I will always have some interest in this site. I may find it dull, and have little interest in posting, but I doubt I'll ever fully walk away.
And of course I'm still posting in this thread. People are asking me to clarify my points. It would seem rude to simply walk away and ignore any comments directed at me. I'll try and answer any questions people put to me. When people lose interest in this topic, and stop discussing it, then I will probably fade away for a while.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 12, 2012, 04:05:52 PM
I'm happy that I could provide :)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 12, 2012, 04:24:05 PM
Adam, Butterflies and Shleed.

I've been starting what I thought were interesting/thoughtful/intense threads that might appeal to a younger crowd.  Evidently I'm way out of touch.  How about helping a rapidly aging Queen out here and start some threads that you think would work?

I think that you deserve full credit for your approach, and I have nothing but respect for you because of it. I think that if others shared your attitude, myself included, this site would be miles better.

For me though, I really cant imagine staying around here as a regular poster. Coming back and attempting to express my views has shown me that the antagonism between myself and Les and Odeon still very much exists.
I know that Im very welcome on this site, even by Odeon. However I feel that anytime I express a controversial view, get involved in an argument with one of their mates, or just generally make a prat of myself, that I'm going to have to spend the next few days having to deal with those two.
As you know, Im not the type to avoid trouble, and I would never be happy being here but keeping out of trouble.
If the place was good again, I would definitely come back and put up with the antagonism, but it just doesnt seem worth it on a site that is so dull nowadays.
I will still be around occasionally to see how everyone is getting on, and I will still try to answer any questions on this topic.



Maybe Adam or Schleed can let you know what might make them happier here.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 12, 2012, 05:12:39 PM
tbh It's not important to me anymore really. I don't want to get interested in this place again as I spend enough time on the internet as it is. I think it's a shame if the place does just stay as the Retirement Home, but for me personally I'm no longer bothered. I doubt I will go back to considering myself a proper member here again
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 06:42:38 PM
This board seems to me to be about socializing. We come on here to hang out with our mates. As much as I like many of the older members, I need to have people that are younger as well.
To use your pub analogy, when you were 22, its unlikely youd have been a regular in a pub where all the punters were miles older than you. You might have liked a lot of them, and seen them as friends, but if it didnt have at least a decent amount of people your own age, its unlikely youd be a regular. At least, thats how I feel, and most people I know tend to hang out with people of roughly their own age, more than people of wildly different ages.

You've done this part a few times and much as I'd like to nod in agreement, I can't because it's as confusing as the rest and I'm beginning to think that you are actively avoiding my question. See, the above might work as an explanation if it was about physical age. I'd think "fine, she wants to hang out with other 20-yo's or whatever her age is". No biggie.

But then Adam chimes in and says that me and Les are being deliberately obtuse (my choice of words) because it's not about physical age. And so me the rationalist wants to know what it is about, then. How is "young" defined in this case? How is "old" explained? (Sort of beside the point but I never knew I was "old" until this thread.)

Some members are mentioned by name, of which a few are posting still and others have left for various reasons. These members are mostly physically younger than I am, but some are in their 40s and I'm struggling to understand what it is that they do that is "young", so I ask again.

I also ask if this young/old thing is more about grouping people in likes/dislikes, which also is fine but this is left without comment, too.

But no answers, no explanations. Just that deliberately dumb thing.

I don't know what to think. Except that it creates drama which creates posts.

TBH, some people fully get what I mean, and others dont. If you dont get it, then I doubt if you'll ever understand, no matter how many times I try to explain.

I sort of hoped you'd have tried at least once.

Quote
You have me, Adam, and Schleed. 3 of the few young people left on your site, all telling you more or less the same thing. That the site now holds no interest for us, to the extent that none of us really seem to be happy here.

But you still don't explain what it is that you aren't happy about. You don't tell me what you'd hope to find here (no, just saying "people in the same age group" is a cop-out), you just keep repeating the same things over and over again, like a mantra.


Quote
Your main concern appears to be winning this "argument" with me. For me, that just totally sums up what this site has become.

What *has* the site become? Be specific.

If you think this is about an argument and nothing more, there's very little for me to add except to say that you really don't know me at all. I have been very specific and hopefully clear about what I want with this one.


Quote
You keep bringing up the failure of Zomg and s2. All Zomg and s2 really prove is that a decent chunk of the membership here are so dissatisfied with this place that they feel the need to try to create a new place to hang out.

Keep bringing up the failure of...? I think I mention them in just one single post in this thread. No need to misrepresent what I said. I'm starting to wonder what your point with posting in this thread was.  It doesn't seem to me that you are particularly interested in trying to change what you don't like about I2.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 06:45:01 PM
tbh It's not important to me anymore really. I don't want to get interested in this place again as I spend enough time on the internet as it is. I think it's a shame if the place does just stay as the Retirement Home, but for me personally I'm no longer bothered. I doubt I will go back to considering myself a proper member here again

What makes it a retirement home, in your eyes? Or is it just that you like to chime in?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 06:48:14 PM
Reading Schleed's reply, his answer makes a lot more sense than the bs about young people. He says:

Quote
I might make a forum or try and maintain contact with you lot outside i2, ie. Skype. The only reason I went on here again is the lack of interaction with people I actually like.

People, not age. Now don't you think that is refreshingly honest?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 12, 2012, 07:01:50 PM
Just to clairfy, Odeon is right on this. It's not people's ages that put me off, otherwise I would not be talking to awesome members like Misskitty and such.

If anything, I really can't put my finger on it. At first I thought it was the "grumpy old man" mentality some members have here, but it's more complex than that. I'll just put it up to boredom if you want the simple explanation.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: MissKitty on November 12, 2012, 07:28:18 PM
Just to clairfy, Odeon is right on this. It's not people's ages that put me off, otherwise I would not be talking to awesome members like Misskitty and such.
Hold up...are you saying I'm OLD??!!!  :lol1:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 12, 2012, 07:33:52 PM
Age comes with experience. :eyebrows:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 12, 2012, 08:00:02 PM
Reading Schleed's reply, his answer makes a lot more sense than the bs about young people. He says:

Quote
I might make a forum or try and maintain contact with you lot outside i2, ie. Skype. The only reason I went on here again is the lack of interaction with people I actually like.

People, not age. Now don't you think that is refreshingly honest?

OK. Fair point. I'm not doing great at this, and I feel that I'm crossing a line by naming names, but I'll try this explanation.

Its not that I want to just hang out with people of my own age. I want to hang out with a mix of people.
Here are examples. I am really sorry to anyone who is pissed off with how I describe them.

Adam and Schleed. Both youngies. Love them both. Want to hang out with them.
QV. Oldie. Love her to bits. I love sharing a site with her. She is smart and wise.
Zippo. Total youngster. Good for the site. Dont like him at all.
Zegh. Under 30, but I could never put him into a group. He is a total one-off, and one of the coolest, nicest, and most brilliant people I have met on the internet.

OK, as you can see, it will make no sense to you. If it never made sense to you to begin with, it will make less sense now.


Schleed did make another good point.
Just to clairfy, Odeon is right on this. It's not people's ages that put me off, otherwise I would not be talking to awesome members like Misskitty and such.

If anything, I really can't put my finger on it. At first I thought it was the "grumpy old man" mentality some members have here, but it's more complex than that. I'll just put it up to boredom if you want the simple explanation.

This is very true. As Ive said, its not really biological age. The site site just feels so old-farty. What I was really trying to say in the earlier posts was that the site needed an injection of youth to shake it up and make it exciting again.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: MissKitty on November 12, 2012, 08:04:53 PM
Age comes with experience. :eyebrows:
This is true  :cfm:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 12, 2012, 08:07:32 PM
Age comes with experience. :eyebrows:
This is true  :cfm:
>:D
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 12, 2012, 08:52:41 PM
Adam, Butterflies and Shleed.

I've been starting what I thought were interesting/thoughtful/intense threads that might appeal to a younger crowd.  Evidently I'm way out of touch.  How about helping a rapidly aging Queen out here and start some threads that you think would work?

My apologies, Schleed, for misspelling your name.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 12, 2012, 08:56:03 PM
Well, let me put my two cents in again.

Back in the old Intensity days we had nudes, dicks, sexual innuendo, teasing, etc.  Sort of a locker room mentality.  We also bashed (rightly or wrongly) richard, penty, razorbeard, etc.  We posted less about problems (Adam excepted) and had a more light-hearted attitude about the site. 

Could this be in part what people are missing? 
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 12, 2012, 08:57:53 PM
Adam, Butterflies and Shleed.

I've been starting what I thought were interesting/thoughtful/intense threads that might appeal to a younger crowd.  Evidently I'm way out of touch.  How about helping a rapidly aging Queen out here and start some threads that you think would work?

My apologies, Schleed, for misspelling your name.

Shleed is the correct spelling.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 12, 2012, 09:04:02 PM
Adam, Butterflies and Shleed.

I've been starting what I thought were interesting/thoughtful/intense threads that might appeal to a younger crowd.  Evidently I'm way out of touch.  How about helping a rapidly aging Queen out here and start some threads that you think would work?

My apologies, Schleed, for misspelling your name.

Shleed is the correct spelling.

Okay?  Then why does it say Schleed? 
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 12, 2012, 09:59:17 PM
Just so i think I know what you mean Butterflies.
The problem that you three members of this site have is that their are older people here, but some of those older people are fine.
That there has been some younger members who have left for various reason but not as to the age of people on here.
That you want it to change but do not wish to actually do anything to change it or suggest ways in which it ought to change
You believe that myself and Odeon are antagonistic towards you and ought not be...for some reason.
You believe that asking to have vague positions clarified is akin to being antagonistic
You seem to be pushing for another off-forum meet up for the younger members (like Spasticity and Zomgaspies) and denouncing IntensitySquared
You seem to say that You, Adam and Shleed may leave or cut back on posting....and we need to make things better for you if we want you to post more.
Is that the crux?

If so....I gotta say i am quite happy with the place. If you can give constructive advice on this place and be less vague that would be super. If you and whomever else want to leave or reduce your posting then OK.

Is that what I should have got out of all of this?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 12, 2012, 10:06:32 PM
Adam, Butterflies and Shleed.

I've been starting what I thought were interesting/thoughtful/intense threads that might appeal to a younger crowd.  Evidently I'm way out of touch.  How about helping a rapidly aging Queen out here and start some threads that you think would work?

My apologies, Schleed, for misspelling your name.

Shleed is the correct spelling.

Okay?  Then why does it say Schleed?

Because I have an old account that was banned, which is named "Shleed".
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TA on November 12, 2012, 10:08:01 PM
I'm not going to bother to try and make sense of this argument...but age is irrelevant, why bitch about it?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 12, 2012, 10:08:36 PM
Well, let me put my two cents in again.

Back in the old Intensity days we had nudes, dicks, sexual innuendo, teasing, etc.  Sort of a locker room mentality.  We also bashed (rightly or wrongly) richard, penty, razorbeard, etc.  We posted less about problems (Adam excepted) and had a more light-hearted attitude about the site. 

Could this be in part what people are missing?

Yes. Totally yes. Things were great then.

That is exactly what I missed.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 12, 2012, 10:20:06 PM
Well, let me put my two cents in again.

Back in the old Intensity days we had nudes, dicks, sexual innuendo, teasing, etc.  Sort of a locker room mentality.  We also bashed (rightly or wrongly) richard, penty, razorbeard, etc.  We posted less about problems (Adam excepted) and had a more light-hearted attitude about the site. 

Could this be in part what people are missing? 

???
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 12, 2012, 10:20:51 PM
Just so i think I know what you mean Butterflies.
The problem that you three members of this site have is that their are older people here, but some of those older people are fine.
That there has been some younger members who have left for various reason but not as to the age of people on here.
That you want it to change but do not wish to actually do anything to change it or suggest ways in which it ought to change
You believe that myself and Odeon are antagonistic towards you and ought not be...for some reason.
You believe that asking to have vague positions clarified is akin to being antagonistic
You seem to be pushing for another off-forum meet up for the younger members (like Spasticity and Zomgaspies) and denouncing IntensitySquared
You seem to say that You, Adam and Shleed may leave or cut back on posting....and we need to make things better for you if we want you to post more.
Is that the crux?

If so....I gotta say i am quite happy with the place. If you can give constructive advice on this place and be less vague that would be super. If you and whomever else want to leave or reduce your posting then OK.

Is that what I should have got out of all of this?

QV has pretty much nailed it.

And no. I havent pushed for another off-forum meet-up, although Schleed has created one, and I am a member.


Beyond that, what does it matter? MLA created graphs that showed the huge drop in activity. I gave my opinion on what I felt was part of the problem.
Are my opinions really so important that they warrant this level of scrutiny? Most of the time, when people cant understand the point Im trying to make, they give up after a couple of minutes and smile politely. Youre still going strong after a couple of days ???
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 12, 2012, 10:24:28 PM
If we stop using the age thing, will that put an end to this ridiculous argument? I'm surprised any of you PREFER to be called boring than old - personlly I thought we were being more polite with "old" :laugh:

I stick with the Retirement Home thing though, as that has struck me as being an accurate description of what this place generally is for quite a long time. I cant be arsed explaining it though as this isn't an argument Im particularly interested in, and I don't see why it matters

For what it's worth, I've found this place a little more interesting over the last few days than I have over the rest of the last yeaer, but still not enough for me to stick around or get drawn into it if I wasn't already so used to being here
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 12, 2012, 10:25:28 PM

Beyond that, what does it matter?

I don't get why this has turned into such a big deal either. Im sure we allhave our opinions on why a forum dies down or gets boring (in our eyes). What's so controversial about saying it seems more like a retirement home?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 12, 2012, 10:34:00 PM

Beyond that, what does it matter?

I don't get why this has turned into such a big deal either. Im sure we allhave our opinions on why a forum dies down or gets boring (in our eyes). What's so controversial about saying it seems more like a retirement home?

I cant help but feel that this would have died down ages ago if it wasnt the fact that it was me who made the comment.

And yes, the age thing is ridiculous. Just about any club with a dwindling membership, and a hugely dwindling young membership, would come to the same conclusion as me. They need to get in some more young members.
I cant see why that is such a controversial statement. I didnt suggest gently puting the oldies down. I didnt even suggest putting them off the site. This site needs most of them. Most of them are great. I just said the site needs more youngsters to go along with the established oldies.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 11:52:47 PM
Adam, Butterflies and Shleed.

I've been starting what I thought were interesting/thoughtful/intense threads that might appeal to a younger crowd.  Evidently I'm way out of touch.  How about helping a rapidly aging Queen out here and start some threads that you think would work?

My apologies, Schleed, for misspelling your name.

Shleed is the correct spelling.

Okay?  Then why does it say Schleed?

Because I have an old account that was banned, which is named "Shleed".

What is "Shleed" anyway? :-\
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 12, 2012, 11:57:01 PM
QV has pretty much nailed it.

And no. I havent pushed for another off-forum meet-up, although Schleed has created one, and I am a member.


Beyond that, what does it matter? MLA created graphs that showed the huge drop in activity. I gave my opinion on what I felt was part of the problem.
Are my opinions really so important that they warrant this level of scrutiny? Most of the time, when people cant understand the point Im trying to make, they give up after a couple of minutes and smile politely. Youre still going strong after a couple of days ???

You gave your opinion of MLA's graph and I've tried to understand what you were saying ever since. Do you think it's wrong of me to want that clarified? This is a site based on opinion and argument, in addition to boobs. What did you expect?

I'm glad you've finally admitted to pretty much what I said all along: it's about people, not age.

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 13, 2012, 12:01:31 AM
If we stop using the age thing, will that put an end to this ridiculous argument? I'm surprised any of you PREFER to be called boring than old - personlly I thought we were being more polite with "old" :laugh:

I stick with the Retirement Home thing though, as that has struck me as being an accurate description of what this place generally is for quite a long time. I cant be arsed explaining it though as this isn't an argument Im particularly interested in, and I don't see why it matters

For what it's worth, I've found this place a little more interesting over the last few days than I have over the rest of the last yeaer, but still not enough for me to stick around or get drawn into it if I wasn't already so used to being here

It matters because if you are a member of something you used to love but no longer really bother about, maybe, just maybe, things can be changed. Regardless of what some might think, I have no wish to unintentionally drive away people from this place.

For the record: I have no idea of what you people mean by "old-farty". If it's more or less what I label as "grumpy", then fine. With age seems to come cynicism, and that's what it is.

I am what I am, not much I can or want to do about it, but I don't expect anyone else to change either.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 13, 2012, 12:02:21 AM

Beyond that, what does it matter?

I don't get why this has turned into such a big deal either. Im sure we allhave our opinions on why a forum dies down or gets boring (in our eyes). What's so controversial about saying it seems more like a retirement home?

If you think that is what it is about, you've missed pretty much the whole point.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 13, 2012, 12:05:20 AM
I cant help but feel that this would have died down ages ago if it wasnt the fact that it was me who made the comment.

Pot kettle black. Would you have continued if it had been somebody else than me and Les replying?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 13, 2012, 12:25:37 AM
Well, let me put my two cents in again.

Back in the old Intensity days we had nudes, dicks, sexual innuendo, teasing, etc.  Sort of a locker room mentality.  We also bashed (rightly or wrongly) richard, penty, razorbeard, etc.  We posted less about problems (Adam excepted) and had a more light-hearted attitude about the site. 

Could this be in part what people are missing? 

???

In my memory you posted quite a lot about your OCD and transexuality struggles.  Perhaps because I was new I wasn't aware of earlier members posts or names have changed and I'm just not connecting the new and old names.   
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 13, 2012, 03:45:00 AM
At times there has been a tendency to over analyse comments and pick them apart.   I know i will get accused of siding with the youth here so i am not going to go on about it too much.  However you justify the callouts, reprimands, or whatever i do feel it puts people off commenting.  Young people who may be on the spectrum or who may be nervous about voicing their opinions anyway just won't bother if they think they will get torn apart.

Perhaps i just mean  'lighten up, everyone'

When i joined spasticity there was one person that really shocked me.  Crip.  She hardly said a word here, and was very reserved.  However,  she was totally different on spasticity.  She proved to be a real Miss Personality.  A real lively, bright young person who was full of ideas and new posts.  So, why was she not like that here?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 13, 2012, 03:57:20 AM
Just so i think I know what you mean Butterflies.
The problem that you three members of this site have is that their are older people here, but some of those older people are fine.
That there has been some younger members who have left for various reason but not as to the age of people on here.
That you want it to change but do not wish to actually do anything to change it or suggest ways in which it ought to change
You believe that myself and Odeon are antagonistic towards you and ought not be...for some reason.
You believe that asking to have vague positions clarified is akin to being antagonistic
You seem to be pushing for another off-forum meet up for the younger members (like Spasticity and Zomgaspies) and denouncing IntensitySquared
You seem to say that You, Adam and Shleed may leave or cut back on posting....and we need to make things better for you if we want you to post more.
Is that the crux?

If so....I gotta say i am quite happy with the place. If you can give constructive advice on this place and be less vague that would be super. If you and whomever else want to leave or reduce your posting then OK.

Is that what I should have got out of all of this?

QV has pretty much nailed it.

And no. I havent pushed for another off-forum meet-up, although Schleed has created one, and I am a member.


Beyond that, what does it matter? MLA created graphs that showed the huge drop in activity. I gave my opinion on what I felt was part of the problem.
Are my opinions really so important that they warrant this level of scrutiny? Most of the time, when people cant understand the point Im trying to make, they give up after a couple of minutes and smile politely. Youre still going strong after a couple of days ???

I dunno.

I think that a big part of the reason was that it was an opinion on the viability and value of the site which will always get my attention. Normally it is someone like Meadow saying "You guys are shit and your site is shit and it will burn in hell" kind of thing, which will get a reaction but a fairly dismissive one.
Something a little bit more reasoned will get a bit more input from me.

Another big part of it is that it was you and it was you seeming to indicate or infer something as what you were saying looked vague. So I was "(antagonistically"?) asking to clarify what you were saying and what you weren't.

A further part to things of course is I was having a bit of a deja vu moment.
It felt to me vaguely familiar.
You , Adam, Shleed.
Saying something against the oldies or the established senior members here or the site in general - due to these members
Promoting the younger members here
Suggesting an alternative to spending time elsewhere
Suggesting change here because the site is no good
All of this seemed like it happened once before. I trying to remember. I vaguely remember Squiddy and Bint were involved and it was not quite as cordial.

All good though. That is just an answer to what you asked.
I guess if anyone leaves they can. I guess if anyone wants to post the kind of things they like posting, then that is ok too. I guess if anyone wants to do their own thing that is cool too. No one here is responsible for anyone else or is ultimately responsible for anyone's enjoyment.
I think if someone wants to see more jokes they ought to start posting more and get the ball rolling
If someone wants to see more nudes, then they ought to star posting more and get the ball rolling
If someone wants to see more teasing then they should start......you could start teasing me for example.  :asthing:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 13, 2012, 04:06:32 AM
Quote
All good though. That is just an answer to what you asked.
I guess if anyone leaves they can. I guess if anyone wants to post the kind of things they like posting, then that is ok too. I guess if anyone wants to do their own thing that is cool too. No one here is responsible for anyone else or is ultimately responsible for anyone's enjoyment.
I think if someone wants to see more jokes they ought to start posting more and get the ball rolling
If someone wants to see more nudes, then they ought to star posting more and get the ball rolling
If someone wants to see more teasing then they should start......you could start teasing me for example. 

I can dig this!
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 13, 2012, 04:17:41 AM
At times there has been a tendency to over analyse comments and pick them apart.   I know i will get accused of siding with the youth here so i am not going to go on about it too much.  However you justify the callouts, reprimands, or whatever i do feel it puts people off commenting.  Young people who may be on the spectrum or who may be nervous about voicing their opinions anyway just won't bother if they think they will get torn apart.

Perhaps i just mean  'lighten up, everyone'

When i joined spasticity there was one person that really shocked me.  Crip.  She hardly said a word here, and was very reserved.  However,  she was totally different on spasticity.  She proved to be a real Miss Personality.  A real lively, bright young person who was full of ideas and new posts.  So, why was she not like that here?

I dunno. Have you asked her? I reckon that is probably best, because I can't guess.

I am fine Bodie, I do not need to lighten up. Thanks for the suggestion though.

I am analytical by nature. Some older aspies are like that. Some older aspies love challenging and being challenged for their beliefs. It is part of their nature and personality.
Consider  someone who is fairly intelligent, a bit of a control freak, unable to easily negotiate abstract concepts, an information seeker, perhaps a little inflexible and not that empathetic. Imagine someone like this may have grown up in a time where diagnosis were not prevalent and they grew to be confident and assertive, yet with these deeply entrenched traits
Imagine they found a site encouraging the challenging and defending of ideas.

This is - I would have thought - pretty textbook adult aspie behaviour. Yes?
Does it go both ways that attaching possible personality traits, because of aspergers, in the young, to point fingers at the older, apply equally in the example I just gave of an older adult with aspergers?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 13, 2012, 05:09:28 AM
I don't really care to be honest.  I don't spend that much time here.  I was just making a suggestion as to why young people don't seem to be coming here in droves.

It really is the membership that is here that dictates the atmosphere.  If that is not an atmosphere that suits young people then i guess they need to find somewhere else.  As they have been trying to.

I see it as a kind of like it or lump it thing and i can't muster any energy to try and change it.  So, am lumping it i guess.  My two penneth worth.  Nearly didn't bother.  Just killing some time.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 13, 2012, 05:28:08 AM
I don't really care to be honest.  I don't spend that much time here.  I was just making a suggestion as to why young people don't seem to be coming here in droves.

It really is the membership that is here that dictates the atmosphere.  If that is not an atmosphere that suits young people then i guess they need to find somewhere else.  As they have been trying to.

I see it as a kind of like it or lump it thing and i can't muster any energy to try and change it.  So, am lumping it i guess.  My two penneth worth.  Nearly didn't bother.  Just killing some time.

Ok. But why are they "leaving in droves"?

Was that why binty left? No.
Was that why Calvera left? No
Was that why Eris left? No.

Who are the young people leaving in droves? If this place does not suit everyone, fair enough. If it is more than this, ought we ask questions and examine or is asking such questions bad form? Is vague answers worth clarifying or are they better left?
Is it suggestable that the older people are somehow at fault for younger people leaving and if so, how? (By being old, is not any constructive answer nor is by behaving their age that helpful.)
I am actually finding that the more that is alluded to the more questions it opens. None of it seems really that clear.
It is all about a person's age....but it really isn't.
It is the type of threads that are posted....but then were that really the case then the person wanting those threads would have posted.
It is about young people leaving over the same reason (older members?)....but they seem to leave for a variety of different reasons
Then when I question these kinds of things I am spending too much time on it or being overly analtyical or antagonistic.

What gives?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 13, 2012, 07:26:40 AM
Quote from: butterflies
I don't get why this has turned into such a big deal either. Im sure we allhave our opinions on why a forum dies down or gets boring (in our eyes). What's so controversial about saying it seems more like a retirement home?

If you think that is what it is about, you've missed pretty much the whole point.

What are you saying it's about?


Edited to fix the quotes
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 13, 2012, 07:38:37 AM
Heyyy, i never said 'leaving in droves'  i did say they weren't joining in droves.  It was in the thread that members see when they become elders.  I forget the name of it.  I know someone posted in there just to say how quiet it was.

I really don't think age is relevant.  Or a problem.   Not even sure about what the problem is or if it even exists.   Just responding as it seems to be there for some.

I am off to play some fb games. :LOL:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 13, 2012, 08:03:41 AM
Heyyy, i never said 'leaving in droves'  i did say they weren't joining in droves.  It was in the thread that members see when they become elders.  I forget the name of it.  I know someone posted in there just to say how quiet it was.

I really don't think age is relevant.  Or a problem.   Not even sure about what the problem is or if it even exists.   Just responding as it seems to be there for some.

I am off to play some fb games. :LOL:

I am frustrated. I will not lie. I am not frustrated with you or Butterflies or Adam.
I am not angry nor am i upset.
I really kind of hoped that this would have made some sense to me. Not any one post but perhaps 6 or 7 pages later after having read everything, thought hard about it, compared it to what had previously been written, knowing the history of what had happened before, and in being a members here....still no fucking clue.
My tenacity is the reason I am still trying to nut it out.
I don't even know if there is more than one premise or a main issue. No fucking idea.  :GA:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 13, 2012, 09:35:55 AM
Well, let me put my two cents in again.

Back in the old Intensity days we had nudes, dicks, sexual innuendo, teasing, etc.  Sort of a locker room mentality.  We also bashed (rightly or wrongly) richard, penty, razorbeard, etc.  We posted less about problems (Adam excepted) and had a more light-hearted attitude about the site. 

Could this be in part what people are missing?

Yes. Totally yes. Things were great then.

That is exactly what I missed.

Richard is still being bashed plenty, as would Penty if he were around and acting as though he deserved it..  Is it the dicks that everyone misses?  :dunno:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: MissKitty on November 13, 2012, 10:12:21 AM
Well, let me put my two cents in again.

Back in the old Intensity days we had nudes, dicks, sexual innuendo, teasing, etc.  Sort of a locker room mentality.  We also bashed (rightly or wrongly) richard, penty, razorbeard, etc.  We posted less about problems (Adam excepted) and had a more light-hearted attitude about the site. 

Could this be in part what people are missing?

Yes. Totally yes. Things were great then.

That is exactly what I missed.

Richard is still being bashed plenty, as would Penty if he were around and acting as though he deserved it..  Is it the dicks that everyone misses?  :dunno:
I still say it's just a phase. Something will happen to get everyone fired back up again, word spreads, people start returning. Then eventually it dies down again. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. I've been on forums for a long time and that always seems to be the case.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 13, 2012, 10:18:28 AM
Well, let me put my two cents in again.

Back in the old Intensity days we had nudes, dicks, sexual innuendo, teasing, etc.  Sort of a locker room mentality.  We also bashed (rightly or wrongly) richard, penty, razorbeard, etc.  We posted less about problems (Adam excepted) and had a more light-hearted attitude about the site. 

Could this be in part what people are missing?

Yes. Totally yes. Things were great then.

That is exactly what I missed.

Richard is still being bashed plenty, as would Penty if he were around and acting as though he deserved it..  Is it the dicks that everyone misses?  :dunno:
I still say it's just a phase. Something will happen to get everyone fired back up again, word spreads, people start returning. Then eventually it dies down again. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. I've been on forums for a long time and that always seems to be the case.

  :agreed:    I can't imagine what a site like this could do  *purposely*  to attract
  younger or new members.  The site just has to be itself, and people will hear about it
  or not, and they will join or not.  I don't see what else there is to be done.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 13, 2012, 10:53:27 AM
So, some two hundred and seventy something posts later, after MLA posted his graphs, people are still posting about how great it is and there is nothing wrong.     :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


 :tard:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 13, 2012, 11:02:54 AM
QV has pretty much nailed it.

And no. I havent pushed for another off-forum meet-up, although Schleed has created one, and I am a member.


Beyond that, what does it matter? MLA created graphs that showed the huge drop in activity. I gave my opinion on what I felt was part of the problem.
Are my opinions really so important that they warrant this level of scrutiny? Most of the time, when people cant understand the point Im trying to make, they give up after a couple of minutes and smile politely. Youre still going strong after a couple of days ???

You gave your opinion of MLA's graph and I've tried to understand what you were saying ever since. Do you think it's wrong of me to want that clarified? This is a site based on opinion and argument, in addition to boobs. What did you expect?

I'm glad you've finally admitted to pretty much what I said all along: it's about people, not age.

Its not wrong of you to want it clarified. It does feel strange though. IRL, I often fail to put my point across well, and nobody seems interested in getting to the bottom of what I was trying to say. The people who love me most are happy to smile at me, and pretend they know what Im saying, when they clearly dont have a clue what Im saying.
It feels strange that anyone is really all that interested in my opinions, or what Im trying to say.

Quote
I'm glad you've finally admitted to pretty much what I said all along: it's about people, not age.
Im not fully sure I agree. There are different issues.
This site needs more good members, young or old. I think we probably all agree on that.
I believe this site also needs an injection of youth. That is just my opinion.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 13, 2012, 11:16:24 AM
I cant help but feel that this would have died down ages ago if it wasnt the fact that it was me who made the comment.

Pot kettle black. Would you have continued if it had been somebody else than me and Les replying?

Absolutely yes. TBH, I would prefer to never interact with Les again. Its highly unlikely I would ever choose to initiate any interaction with Les unless he was attacking me, or a good friend. I would never comment on his views or opinions, unless they were clearly aimed at me or a friend.

As for you, its true that I have a certain level of distrust towards you, just as Im sure you have towards me.
Despite your failings and the way you are towards me, I think you are a decent guy at heart. I am prepared to argue a point with you, but dont really have a great desire to do so.


Your post could not be further from the truth, and you are misjudging me a lot.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 13, 2012, 11:19:31 AM
Just so i think I know what you mean Butterflies.
The problem that you three members of this site have is that their are older people here, but some of those older people are fine.
That there has been some younger members who have left for various reason but not as to the age of people on here.
That you want it to change but do not wish to actually do anything to change it or suggest ways in which it ought to change
You believe that myself and Odeon are antagonistic towards you and ought not be...for some reason.
You believe that asking to have vague positions clarified is akin to being antagonistic
You seem to be pushing for another off-forum meet up for the younger members (like Spasticity and Zomgaspies) and denouncing IntensitySquared
You seem to say that You, Adam and Shleed may leave or cut back on posting....and we need to make things better for you if we want you to post more.
Is that the crux?

If so....I gotta say i am quite happy with the place. If you can give constructive advice on this place and be less vague that would be super. If you and whomever else want to leave or reduce your posting then OK.

Is that what I should have got out of all of this?

QV has pretty much nailed it.

And no. I havent pushed for another off-forum meet-up, although Schleed has created one, and I am a member.


Beyond that, what does it matter? MLA created graphs that showed the huge drop in activity. I gave my opinion on what I felt was part of the problem.
Are my opinions really so important that they warrant this level of scrutiny? Most of the time, when people cant understand the point Im trying to make, they give up after a couple of minutes and smile politely. Youre still going strong after a couple of days ???

I dunno.

I think that a big part of the reason was that it was an opinion on the viability and value of the site which will always get my attention. Normally it is someone like Meadow saying "You guys are shit and your site is shit and it will burn in hell" kind of thing, which will get a reaction but a fairly dismissive one.
Something a little bit more reasoned will get a bit more input from me.

Another big part of it is that it was you and it was you seeming to indicate or infer something as what you were saying looked vague. So I was "(antagonistically"?) asking to clarify what you were saying and what you weren't.

A further part to things of course is I was having a bit of a deja vu moment.
It felt to me vaguely familiar.
You , Adam, Shleed.
Saying something against the oldies or the established senior members here or the site in general - due to these members
Promoting the younger members here
Suggesting an alternative to spending time elsewhere
Suggesting change here because the site is no good
All of this seemed like it happened once before. I trying to remember. I vaguely remember Squiddy and Bint were involved and it was not quite as cordial.

All good though. That is just an answer to what you asked.
I guess if anyone leaves they can. I guess if anyone wants to post the kind of things they like posting, then that is ok too. I guess if anyone wants to do their own thing that is cool too. No one here is responsible for anyone else or is ultimately responsible for anyone's enjoyment.
I think if someone wants to see more jokes they ought to start posting more and get the ball rolling
If someone wants to see more nudes, then they ought to star posting more and get the ball rolling
If someone wants to see more teasing then they should start......you could start teasing me for example.  :asthing:

I really dont want to tease you.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 13, 2012, 11:31:03 AM
Well, let me put my two cents in again.

Back in the old Intensity days we had nudes, dicks, sexual innuendo, teasing, etc.  Sort of a locker room mentality.  We also bashed (rightly or wrongly) richard, penty, razorbeard, etc.  We posted less about problems (Adam excepted) and had a more light-hearted attitude about the site. 

Could this be in part what people are missing?

Yes. Totally yes. Things were great then.

That is exactly what I missed.

Richard is still being bashed plenty, as would Penty if he were around and acting as though he deserved it..  Is it the dicks that everyone misses?  :dunno:

TBH, that is a part of it for me, but only a small part.

Please dont ask me to name names, but I feel we do still get our fair share of dicks here. However, instead of being cannon fodder, they are becoming respected members.
In a way, this is good. The site is becoming more open to all, and not just "a barely-legal, completely unethical, den of iniquity that exists mainly for the amusement of a socially-able aspergic elite."
However, bad a person as it makes me, I preferred it the way it was.






*This is an opinion. It cant be backed up. To name any names would be cruel and unnecessary, towards people who have done me no ill.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 13, 2012, 11:42:15 AM
So, some two hundred and seventy something posts later, after MLA posted his graphs, people are still posting about how great it is and there is nothing wrong.     :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


 :tard:

I have to admit, I cant understand how anyone can say the sites OK at the moment.

I can totally get MKs point that it will pick up again, and I hope she's right. She might well be.
I can fully respect people disagreeing with my opinions on where the site is failing. Its very possible that my opinion is wrong, and this sites downturn has nothing to do with the fact that it has so few young people involved now.
It might even be the case that despite what I say, there are other ways to revitalize the site that dont involve encouraging youth a bit more.

However, to suggest that things are rosy in the i2 garden right now, seems like sticking their head in the sand.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 13, 2012, 12:23:11 PM
Quote from: butterflies
I don't get why this has turned into such a big deal either. Im sure we allhave our opinions on why a forum dies down or gets boring (in our eyes). What's so controversial about saying it seems more like a retirement home?

If you think that is what it is about, you've missed pretty much the whole point.

What are you saying it's about?


Edited to fix the quotes

About trying to understand what makes it a retirement home in his eyes and others' an what it actually means. I'd like to understand. I would like people to enjoy the site and if there is something I can do, it wouldn't be a bad thing.

My apologies if I don't make sense, I'm still post-op drugged.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: MissKitty on November 13, 2012, 12:24:10 PM
So, some two hundred and seventy something posts later, after MLA posted his graphs, people are still posting about how great it is and there is nothing wrong.     :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


 :tard:

I have to admit, I cant understand how anyone can say the sites OK at the moment.

I can totally get MKs point that it will pick up again, and I hope she's right. She might well be.
I can fully respect people disagreeing with my opinions on where the site is failing. Its very possible that my opinion is wrong, and this sites downturn has nothing to do with the fact that it has so few young people involved now.
It might even be the case that despite what I say, there are other ways to revitalize the site that dont involve encouraging youth a bit more.

However, to suggest that things are rosy in the i2 garden right now, seems like sticking their head in the sand.
I actually do agree with you. I don't think it's rosy in the garden at all. It all feels a bit "flat" for lack of a better term. Why it feels that way and how to change it? I really don't know. But I also know i'm not one for drama. I have so much of it in my day to day life the past few years that I've had my fill and I walk away when I see it happening elsewhere. So for me flat is A-OK at  the moment :P But that's not going to appeal to anyone and interest will drop. I totally get that.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 13, 2012, 12:37:32 PM
I cant help but feel that this would have died down ages ago if it wasnt the fact that it was me who made the comment.

Pot kettle black. Would you have continued if it had been somebody else than me and Les replying?

Absolutely yes. TBH, I would prefer to never interact with Les again. Its highly unlikely I would ever choose to initiate any interaction with Les unless he was attacking me, or a good friend. I would never comment on his views or opinions, unless they were clearly aimed at me or a friend.

As for you, its true that I have a certain level of distrust towards you, just as Im sure you have towards me.
Despite your failings and the way you are towards me, I think you are a decent guy at heart. I am prepared to argue a point with you, but dont really have a great desire to do so.


Your post could not be further from the truth, and you are misjudging me a lot.

I don' think my post is that far from the truth, tbh.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 13, 2012, 12:47:19 PM
So, some two hundred and seventy something posts later, after MLA posted his graphs, people are still posting about how great it is and there is nothing wrong.     :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


 :tard:

I have to admit, I cant understand how anyone can say the sites OK at the moment.

I can totally get MKs point that it will pick up again, and I hope she's right. She might well be.
I can fully respect people disagreeing with my opinions on where the site is failing. Its very possible that my opinion is wrong, and this sites downturn has nothing to do with the fact that it has so few young people involved now.
It might even be the case that despite what I say, there are other ways to revitalize the site that dont involve encouraging youth a bit more.

However, to suggest that things are rosy in the i2 garden right now, seems like sticking their head in the sand.
I actually do agree with you. I don't think it's rosy in the garden at all. It all feels a bit "flat" for lack of a better term. Why it feels that way and how to change it? I really don't know. But I also know i'm not one for drama. I have so much of it in my day to day life the past few years that I've had my fill and I walk away when I see it happening elsewhere. So for me flat is A-OK at  the moment :P But that's not going to appeal to anyone and interest will drop. I totally get that.

I agree, and I also dont know how to fix it. If I did, I would be happy to tell. FWIW, I dont think that more drama is a necessity. I think that more action is.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 13, 2012, 12:51:21 PM
OK not more drama then.... more games  ;)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 13, 2012, 12:54:27 PM
I cant help but feel that this would have died down ages ago if it wasnt the fact that it was me who made the comment.

Pot kettle black. Would you have continued if it had been somebody else than me and Les replying?

Absolutely yes. TBH, I would prefer to never interact with Les again. Its highly unlikely I would ever choose to initiate any interaction with Les unless he was attacking me, or a good friend. I would never comment on his views or opinions, unless they were clearly aimed at me or a friend.

As for you, its true that I have a certain level of distrust towards you, just as Im sure you have towards me.
Despite your failings and the way you are towards me, I think you are a decent guy at heart. I am prepared to argue a point with you, but dont really have a great desire to do so.


Your post could not be further from the truth, and you are misjudging me a lot.

I don' think my post is that far from the truth, tbh.

Its miles from the truth. I dont want to argue with Les at all. Why on Earth would I want to argue with someone who I truly dislike, and who is only going to continue writing essays at me. Its not like I can even win. It will just go the exact same way as any argument anyone has with him, and be an endless exchange of essays. I have no interest in that. I would much prefer to keep out of his way, and him to keep out of mine.

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 13, 2012, 01:06:06 PM
I cant help but feel that this would have died down ages ago if it wasnt the fact that it was me who made the comment.

Pot kettle black. Would you have continued if it had been somebody else than me and Les replying?

Absolutely yes. TBH, I would prefer to never interact with Les again. Its highly unlikely I would ever choose to initiate any interaction with Les unless he was attacking me, or a good friend. I would never comment on his views or opinions, unless they were clearly aimed at me or a friend.

As for you, its true that I have a certain level of distrust towards you, just as Im sure you have towards me.
Despite your failings and the way you are towards me, I think you are a decent guy at heart. I am prepared to argue a point with you, but dont really have a great desire to do so.


Your post could not be further from the truth, and you are misjudging me a lot.

I don' think my post is that far from the truth, tbh.

Its miles from the truth. I dont want to argue with Les at all. Why on Earth would I want to argue with someone who I truly dislike, and who is only going to continue writing essays at me. Its not like I can even win. It will just go the exact same way as any argument anyone has with him, and be an endless exchange of essays. I have no interest in that. I would much prefer to keep out of his way, and him to keep out of mine.

What essays? His posts in this thread are not longer than yours are, it's just the same tired rhetorical device you used the last time around.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 13, 2012, 01:23:06 PM
I cant help but feel that this would have died down ages ago if it wasnt the fact that it was me who made the comment.

Pot kettle black. Would you have continued if it had been somebody else than me and Les replying?

Absolutely yes. TBH, I would prefer to never interact with Les again. Its highly unlikely I would ever choose to initiate any interaction with Les unless he was attacking me, or a good friend. I would never comment on his views or opinions, unless they were clearly aimed at me or a friend.

As for you, its true that I have a certain level of distrust towards you, just as Im sure you have towards me.
Despite your failings and the way you are towards me, I think you are a decent guy at heart. I am prepared to argue a point with you, but dont really have a great desire to do so.


Your post could not be further from the truth, and you are misjudging me a lot.

I don' think my post is that far from the truth, tbh.

Its miles from the truth. I dont want to argue with Les at all. Why on Earth would I want to argue with someone who I truly dislike, and who is only going to continue writing essays at me. Its not like I can even win. It will just go the exact same way as any argument anyone has with him, and be an endless exchange of essays. I have no interest in that. I would much prefer to keep out of his way, and him to keep out of mine.

What essays? His posts in this thread are not longer than yours are, it's just the same tired rhetorical device you used the last time around.

Im not saying his posts are longer than mine here. Im saying that I truly do not want any interaction with that man at all. I dont want to argue with him, I dont want to speak to him.
I know I could put him on ignore, but Im not really into doing that.

You appear to be saying that I do want to argue with him.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 13, 2012, 02:33:02 PM
Yeah, right.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 13, 2012, 02:47:24 PM
Yeah, right.

Thats pretty feeble Odeon. Im sure if I was telling you how you feel, and getting it so hopelessly wrong, you'd be quick to tell me I was being pathetic.

I have done nothing to encourage Les. I dont even see what my comments have to do with him.
I can obviously see a reason for you to respond. You do own the site. I have done nothing at all to provoke any dialogue with Les. I have even tried to answer his posts to me as civilly as possible, and without provocation or bitchiness.

I cant understand why you are trying to disagree with me on this matter. Its very clear that Im trying not to fight him.
Its unlikely that youre not smart enough to see this, so I cant help but question your motives here.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 13, 2012, 03:15:09 PM
Stop insulting my intelligence, Butterflies. You didn't use the word 'essay' when talking abot Les's posts by mistake.

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 13, 2012, 03:47:12 PM
Stop insulting my intelligence, Butterflies. You didn't use the word 'essay' when talking abot Les's posts by mistake.

 ??? :facepalm2: ???

Referring to Les' long posts as essays is not an insult. It is a term that is used to jokingly describe any long post here. I think I can safely say, it is not taken as an insult by Les. He even uses the term himself to describe his posts.
I even referred to my first long post in this thread as an essay.

I never thought it would come from you, but this may well have made the top 10 greatest facepalm moments in my time at i2. If you are basing your opinion that I want to argue with Les on the fact that I used the term essays to describe 1 of Les' posts, then you are having an epic aspie moment.


For the record, I apologize to Les for any insult caused in this thread by my use of the ward essays.

I am truly shocked at you Odeon :facepalm2:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 13, 2012, 04:57:47 PM
Apology accepted
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 13, 2012, 05:00:37 PM
Apology accepted
:thumbup:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 13, 2012, 06:06:36 PM
Long, drawn out types of drama is never fun and IMO is one of the reasons why i2 is stagnating.

If done right, drama is brilliant. Examples include:

Eclair Nuddies: Frankly hilarious, and one of the highlights of i2 drama.
Soiled Arse/Razorbeard: Both are equally good in my book. The first time I traded words with truly delusional narcissists.
Chair: Also a narcissist, but at least he was a bit more realistic. Got royally pwned by pretty much all of i2.
TCO Whining: I know this was the catalyst to the long, drawn out drama that bores me, but the initial part was pretty good. Hilarious to see an old man act so petulantly.
Penty/Dook: Both normal drama and pasting his nudes on AFF/4chan etc.
Meadow: What do you get when you put a fucked up narcissist with i2? Chaos, brilliant chaos.
BC: Hilarious in the sense that he pretty much successfully trolled most members here. Then he started being an attention whore on s2 etc, but that's another matter.
Binty Outbursts: Intense, emotionally charged and hilarious.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 13, 2012, 06:09:17 PM
Long, drawn out types of drama is never fun and IMO is one of the reasons why i2 is stagnating.

If done right, drama is brilliant. Examples include:

Eclair Nuddies: Frankly hilarious, and one of the highlights of i2 drama.
Soiled Arse/Razorbeard: Both are equally good in my book. The first time I traded words with truly delusional narcissists.
Chair: Also a narcissist, but at least he was a bit more realistic. Got royally pwned by pretty much all of i2.
TCO Whining: I know this was the catalyst to the long, drawn out drama that bores me, but the initial part was pretty good. Hilarious to see an old man act so petulantly.
Penty/Dook: Both normal drama and pasting his nudes on AFF/4chan etc.
Meadow: What do you get when you put a fucked up narcissist with i2? Chaos, brilliant chaos.
BC: Hilarious in the sense that he pretty much successfully trolled most members here. Then he started being an attention whore on s2 etc, but that's another matter.
Binty Outbursts: Intense, emotionally charged and hilarious.

I agree with all of that. :plus:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 13, 2012, 06:32:57 PM
Tertius!  :thumbup:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 13, 2012, 08:01:39 PM
About trying to understand what makes it a retirement home in his eyes and others' an what it actually means. I'd like to understand. I would like people to enjoy the site and if there is something I can do, it wouldn't be a bad thing.


I have my own theories, but they're so bound up in my overall worldview that I doubt I could coherently explain. I'm in the camp that says it goes in cycles, though, and we're at a low point but there's going to be an upswing.

I think Butterflies should name names.  :autism:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 13, 2012, 08:04:51 PM
Long, drawn out types of drama is never fun and IMO is one of the reasons why i2 is stagnating.

You're smarter than you look.  :orly:

Do we have long, drawn-out drama going on right now? The consensus is that there's stagnation, therefore it logically follows, yeah?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 13, 2012, 08:09:57 PM
About trying to understand what makes it a retirement home in his eyes and others' an what it actually means. I'd like to understand. I would like people to enjoy the site and if there is something I can do, it wouldn't be a bad thing.


I have my own theories, but they're so bound up in my overall worldview that I doubt I could coherently explain. I'm in the camp that says it goes in cycles, though, and we're at a low point but there's going to be an upswing.

I think Butterflies should name names.  :autism:

It really wouldnt be fair. Some of the names will be obvious, and dont need repeated. The ones who arent obvious havent done anything to deserve me doing that to them.

Sorry. TBH, it wouldnt be a good idea anyway. That drama would go on for months :CanofWorms: and I really cant be bothered dealing with that.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 13, 2012, 08:17:15 PM
I don't think it's rosy in the garden at all.

(http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/how-to-care-for-roses-11.jpg)

(http://www.theenglishgroup.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/tumblr_m6ulr0RCIu1qaze7ro1_1280-460x540.jpg)

(http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/023/6/4/close_up_5_by_winona7-d4ndaaq.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Peter on November 13, 2012, 08:20:44 PM
About trying to understand what makes it a retirement home in his eyes and others' an what it actually means. I'd like to understand. I would like people to enjoy the site and if there is something I can do, it wouldn't be a bad thing.

People need to start fucking each other around here.  That'll liven things up, with all the jealousy, love-polygons, backstabbing and so on.  Very unretirementhomey.  Lets see if we can get a love hypercube going.

(I've not been paying attention, so I don't know what the issues are meant to be, but I'm sure a love hypercube would improve things, whatever the issues are.)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 13, 2012, 08:21:54 PM
What would be the reason that a couple of people who come and go, come and go and come and go be for trying to decide the fate and future for this forum.

You two trying to decide who is cool and who is not

Who is too young or too old.

It would seem to me that you are just shit stirring.

Schleed you think this site is 'boring', well dude your site is twice as so.

Butterflies you are just poking at people, for the hell of it, like usual. What the heck makes you the queen of decide.

you are both pretty fucking boring yourselves.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 13, 2012, 08:23:38 PM
What would be the reason that a couple of people who come and go, come and go and come and go be for trying to decide the fate and future for this forum.

You two trying to decide who is cool and who is not

Who is too young or too old.

It would seem to me that you are just shit stirring.

Schleed you think this site is 'boring', well dude your site is twice as so.

Butterflies you are just poking at people, for the hell of it, like usual. What the heck makes you the queen of decide.

you are both pretty fucking boring yourselves.

Youre too old :thumbup:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 13, 2012, 10:10:18 PM
What would be the reason that a couple of people who come and go, come and go and come and go be for trying to decide the fate and future for this forum.

You two trying to decide who is cool and who is not

Who is too young or too old.

It would seem to me that you are just shit stirring.

Schleed you think this site is 'boring', well dude your site is twice as so.

Butterflies you are just poking at people, for the hell of it, like usual. What the heck makes you the queen of decide.

you are both pretty fucking boring yourselves.

I have a site now? Get with the times maaaaan

In all seriousness, you are frankly one of the most boring members here. What do you contribute to this forum? Go on, tell me.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 13, 2012, 10:24:36 PM
What would be the reason that a couple of people who come and go, come and go and come and go be for trying to decide the fate and future for this forum.

You two trying to decide who is cool and who is not

Who is too young or too old.

It would seem to me that you are just shit stirring.

Schleed you think this site is 'boring', well dude your site is twice as so.

Butterflies you are just poking at people, for the hell of it, like usual. What the heck makes you the queen of decide.

you are both pretty fucking boring yourselves.

I have a site now? Get with the times maaaaan

In all seriousness, you are frankly one of the most boring members here. What do you contribute to this forum? Go on, tell me.
smart ass remarks and non-sensical commentary. I do sometimes mingle with the members., however.

But being the loner that I am, I prefer just hanging loose reading the occasional post. Kind of like normal folks do.

What do you contribute lately. Not much. Just the occasional remark. well there is your ongoing convo with butterflies. But it is much ado about nothing.

What happened to your spasticity site, I guess I should go and lurk there for a bit, to see whats what. Unless you have already let it go.

Didnt see anything worthwhile last time I checked in, bout 6 months ago.

So what do I contribute here, not much

But I am a fucking loyal member, with the same fucking rights as you. And I dont go round bad mouthing the place.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 13, 2012, 10:25:37 PM
What would be the reason that a couple of people who come and go, come and go and come and go be for trying to decide the fate and future for this forum.

You two trying to decide who is cool and who is not

Who is too young or too old.

It would seem to me that you are just shit stirring.

Schleed you think this site is 'boring', well dude your site is twice as so.

Butterflies you are just poking at people, for the hell of it, like usual. What the heck makes you the queen of decide.

you are both pretty fucking boring yourselves.

Youre too old :thumbup:
you`re too fucked up
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 13, 2012, 10:43:58 PM
blah blah im a faggot
Too right you are.

I closed down s2 well over a year ago. I already stated my reasons of doing so.

What have I contributed? Strangely enough, a lot. Shared my music, art etc, participated in drama and general debates. Made friends, enemies and got myself known as a regular here.

The fact is, for me there isn't much to contribute here anymore. I came back to see if i2 would shift again, but sadly it's still the same. It takes two to tango, after all.

As for "badmouthing" the place, tough shit. I do not hold blind allegiance to internet forums.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 13, 2012, 10:50:40 PM
blah blah im a faggot
Too right you are.

I closed down s2 well over a year ago. I already stated my reasons of doing so.

What have I contributed? Strangely enough, a lot. Shared my music, art etc, participated in drama and general debates. Made friends, enemies and got myself known as a regular here.

The fact is, for me there isn't much to contribute here anymore. I came back to see if i2 would shift again, but sadly it's still the same. It takes two to tango, after all.

As for "badmouthing" the place, tough shit. I do not hold blind allegiance to internet forums.
Ah, but what have you contributed lately O Great One

Oh, I should just be honored and humbled in your presense.

I think not, you are just an over the hill troll, living on your past glories.

Hell, dont let the screen door hit ya in the ass, on your way out........again
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 13, 2012, 11:11:07 PM
What past glories? Sorry, I'm truly confused by that.

You talk of me leaving again when I never stated that I will. In fact, I'm staying and will probably lurk for a while. On the other hand, you'll probably fuck off after contributing nothing again as usual, despite your "loyalty" to this forum.

You will obviously argue that what I'm doing will basically be the same. However since I don't have pretensions of being a loyal subject like you, I can leave and come back as I please without any hypocrisy. You'd think a loyal defender of i2 like yourself would actually contribute anything, but even in your own words.... you don't. Then again, as the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". :zoinks:

You're a useless hypocritical mouthpiece, nothing more.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 14, 2012, 02:23:06 AM
Stop insulting my intelligence, Butterflies. You didn't use the word 'essay' when talking abot Les's posts by mistake.

 ??? :facepalm2: ???

Referring to Les' long posts as essays is not an insult. It is a term that is used to jokingly describe any long post here. I think I can safely say, it is not taken as an insult by Les. He even uses the term himself to describe his posts.
I even referred to my first long post in this thread as an essay.

I never thought it would come from you, but this may well have made the top 10 greatest facepalm moments in my time at i2. If you are basing your opinion that I want to argue with Les on the fact that I used the term essays to describe 1 of Les' posts, then you are having an epic aspie moment.


For the record, I apologize to Les for any insult caused in this thread by my use of the ward essays.

I am truly shocked at you Odeon :facepalm2:

I'm basing it on a lot more than that, Butterflies. And now including that you protest a little too much.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 14, 2012, 02:25:08 AM
About trying to understand what makes it a retirement home in his eyes and others' an what it actually means. I'd like to understand. I would like people to enjoy the site and if there is something I can do, it wouldn't be a bad thing.


I have my own theories, but they're so bound up in my overall worldview that I doubt I could coherently explain. I'm in the camp that says it goes in cycles, though, and we're at a low point but there's going to be an upswing.

I think Butterflies should name names.  :autism:

I already know it's about people she dislikes, not about age. As for names, I don't really care.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 14, 2012, 02:29:26 AM
What would be the reason that a couple of people who come and go, come and go and come and go be for trying to decide the fate and future for this forum.

You two trying to decide who is cool and who is not

Who is too young or too old.

It would seem to me that you are just shit stirring.

Schleed you think this site is 'boring', well dude your site is twice as so.

Butterflies you are just poking at people, for the hell of it, like usual. What the heck makes you the queen of decide.

you are both pretty fucking boring yourselves.

I have a site now? Get with the times maaaaan

In all seriousness, you are frankly one of the most boring members here. What do you contribute to this forum? Go on, tell me.

Hit a nerve there, Shleed?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 14, 2012, 06:13:55 AM
What past glories? Sorry, I'm truly confused by that.

You talk of me leaving again when I never stated that I will. In fact, I'm staying and will probably lurk for a while. On the other hand, you'll probably fuck off after contributing nothing again as usual, despite your "loyalty" to this forum.

You will obviously argue that what I'm doing will basically be the same. However since I don't have pretensions of being a loyal subject like you, I can leave and come back as I please without any hypocrisy. You'd think a loyal defender of i2 like yourself would actually contribute anything, but even in your own words.... you don't. Then again, as the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". :zoinks:

You're a useless hypocritical mouthpiece, nothing more.
Aint no argument to do. I had my say.
pffft..
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 14, 2012, 06:59:54 AM
Shleed is just doing his "I don't care" thing.
I think we all get it Shleed. You are unfazed by anything going on. unmoved. Unperturbed. Non-Flinching. Amused. Distant. Unemotional. Unattached. Not invested. Above all of this.
That about it? Damn Shleed this barrow you have been pushing for as long as i have known you on here.
The truth is when you actually make any sort of effort, you can be mildly interesting. Then off you go on another you being bored, and not caring about this place. Its getting old Shleed.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 14, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
I dont want to argue with Les at all. Why on Earth would I want to argue with someone who I truly dislike

I learned something in this thread. Butterflies doesn't like me.   :zombiefuck:

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 14, 2012, 07:42:06 AM
Shleed is just doing his "I don't care" thing.
I think we all get it Shleed. You are unfazed by anything going on. unmoved. Unperturbed. Non-Flinching. Amused. Distant. Unemotional. Unattached. Not invested. Above all of this.
That about it? Damn Shleed this barrow you have been pushing for as long as i have known you on here.
The truth is when you actually make any sort of effort, you can be mildly interesting. Then off you go on another you being bored, and not caring about this place. Its getting old Shleed.

I think you assume too much, to the point that I never stated that I don't "care".

I dislike skyblue, called him out on his bullshit. Not really hard to follow.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 14, 2012, 07:48:01 AM
Shleed is just doing his "I don't care" thing.
I think we all get it Shleed. You are unfazed by anything going on. unmoved. Unperturbed. Non-Flinching. Amused. Distant. Unemotional. Unattached. Not invested. Above all of this.
That about it? Damn Shleed this barrow you have been pushing for as long as i have known you on here.
The truth is when you actually make any sort of effort, you can be mildly interesting. Then off you go on another you being bored, and not caring about this place. Its getting old Shleed.

I think you assume too much, to the point that I never stated that I don't "care".

I dislike skyblue, called him out on his bullshit. Not really hard to follow.
uhhh, you called me out, where? I just see your same old bullshit and tired retorts.

The way I look at it, you young folks are here to entertain us

So, dance monkey dance

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 14, 2012, 07:55:10 AM
I thought you had no more to say? :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 14, 2012, 10:02:16 AM
I dont want to argue with Les at all. Why on Earth would I want to argue with someone who I truly dislike

I learned something in this thread. Butterflies doesn't like me.   :zombiefuck:

That is shocking news.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 10:38:38 AM
Stop insulting my intelligence, Butterflies. You didn't use the word 'essay' when talking abot Les's posts by mistake.

 ??? :facepalm2: ???

Referring to Les' long posts as essays is not an insult. It is a term that is used to jokingly describe any long post here. I think I can safely say, it is not taken as an insult by Les. He even uses the term himself to describe his posts.
I even referred to my first long post in this thread as an essay.

I never thought it would come from you, but this may well have made the top 10 greatest facepalm moments in my time at i2. If you are basing your opinion that I want to argue with Les on the fact that I used the term essays to describe 1 of Les' posts, then you are having an epic aspie moment.


For the record, I apologize to Les for any insult caused in this thread by my use of the ward essays.

I am truly shocked at you Odeon :facepalm2:

I'm basing it on a lot more than that, Butterflies. And now including that you protest a little too much.

We all have our aspie moments of fail here. When I clearly fail, I try to laugh at myself, and accept my mistake.
Continuing to insist that youre right, when you clearly couldnt have been more wrong, just makes you look like you are unable to accept the fact that you made an error. T thought you were bigger than that Odeon.

If I had been trying to goad Les into a fight, dont you think we'd be fighting by now. 3 days, almost 20 pages later, and we still arent fighting. Do you really think Im this poor at starting fights?

I know youre an intelligent man, but I never realized how much of a total spazz you were.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 10:40:52 AM
What would be the reason that a couple of people who come and go, come and go and come and go be for trying to decide the fate and future for this forum.

You two trying to decide who is cool and who is not

Who is too young or too old.

It would seem to me that you are just shit stirring.

Schleed you think this site is 'boring', well dude your site is twice as so.

Butterflies you are just poking at people, for the hell of it, like usual. What the heck makes you the queen of decide.

you are both pretty fucking boring yourselves.

I have a site now? Get with the times maaaaan

In all seriousness, you are frankly one of the most boring members here. What do you contribute to this forum? Go on, tell me.
smart ass remarks and non-sensical commentary. I do sometimes mingle with the members., however.

But being the loner that I am, I prefer just hanging loose reading the occasional post. Kind of like normal folks do.

What do you contribute lately. Not much. Just the occasional remark. well there is your ongoing convo with butterflies. But it is much ado about nothing.

What happened to your spasticity site, I guess I should go and lurk there for a bit, to see whats what. Unless you have already let it go.

Didnt see anything worthwhile last time I checked in, bout 6 months ago.

So what do I contribute here, not much

But I am a fucking loyal member, with the same fucking rights as you. And I dont go round bad mouthing the place.

Perhaps you could liven things up by cutting and pasting an existing article in its entirety, and then make no comment on it.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 14, 2012, 10:50:50 AM
 :laugh:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 14, 2012, 11:09:10 AM
How long will this stagnate for?


I have nothing better to do atm, but i think i need to go find something.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 11:13:38 AM
How long will this stagnate for?



The site, or this argument/discussion?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 14, 2012, 11:23:55 AM
My thread is a winner  :hadron:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 14, 2012, 11:28:25 AM
this argument. 
unless someone wants to say something totally unexpected.

like....penty has a love child shock :o



waiting for air crash investigation to come on 8)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 11:39:29 AM
this argument. 
unless someone wants to say something totally unexpected.

like....penty has a love child shock :o



waiting for air crash investigation to come on 8)


Im 3 months pregnant, and Richards the father :CanofWorms: We wanted to keep it a secret, but I guess its outta the bag now. We never had sex, but he sent me a sample of his manmilk. I got the old turkey baster out, and much to my surprise, it worked.



I dunno how long this argument will stagnate for. The stupidity appears to be increasing exponentially by the page.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 14, 2012, 11:43:13 AM
this argument. 
unless someone wants to say something totally unexpected.

like....penty has a love child shock :o



waiting for air crash investigation to come on 8)


Im 3 months pregnant, and Richards the father :CanofWorms: We wanted to keep it a secret, but I guess its outta the bag now. We never had sex, but he sent me a sample of his manmilk. I got the old turkey baster out, and much to my surprise, it worked.



I dunno how long this argument will stagnate for. The stupidity appears to be increasing exponentially by the page.

Ooh, ooh, can I be the Godmother?  With Richard I would have thought an eye dropper would hold his silver shower of blessings. 
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 11:49:44 AM
this argument. 
unless someone wants to say something totally unexpected.

like....penty has a love child shock :o



waiting for air crash investigation to come on 8)


Im 3 months pregnant, and Richards the father :CanofWorms: We wanted to keep it a secret, but I guess its outta the bag now. We never had sex, but he sent me a sample of his manmilk. I got the old turkey baster out, and much to my surprise, it worked.



I dunno how long this argument will stagnate for. The stupidity appears to be increasing exponentially by the page.

Ooh, ooh, can I be the Godmother?  With Richard I would have thought an eye dropper would hold his silver shower of blessings.

Of course you can be Godmother. In fact, all of i2 can be godparents, except Odeon. I dont want him teaching his spazziness to the poor baby.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 14, 2012, 11:51:15 AM
this argument. 
unless someone wants to say something totally unexpected.

like....penty has a love child shock :o



waiting for air crash investigation to come on 8)


Im 3 months pregnant, and Richards the father :CanofWorms: We wanted to keep it a secret, but I guess its outta the bag now. We never had sex, but he sent me a sample of his manmilk. I got the old turkey baster out, and much to my surprise, it worked.



I dunno how long this argument will stagnate for. The stupidity appears to be increasing exponentially by the page.

Ooh, ooh, can I be the Godmother?  With Richard I would have thought an eye dropper would hold his silver shower of blessings.

Of course you can be Godmother. In fact, all of i2 can be godparents, except Odeon. I dont want him teaching his spazziness to the poor baby.

That "poor baby" is going to be mighty stupid anyway.  With giant chiclet teeth.   :pentagram:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 11:59:51 AM
this argument. 
unless someone wants to say something totally unexpected.

like....penty has a love child shock :o



waiting for air crash investigation to come on 8)


Im 3 months pregnant, and Richards the father :CanofWorms: We wanted to keep it a secret, but I guess its outta the bag now. We never had sex, but he sent me a sample of his manmilk. I got the old turkey baster out, and much to my surprise, it worked.



I dunno how long this argument will stagnate for. The stupidity appears to be increasing exponentially by the page.

Ooh, ooh, can I be the Godmother?  With Richard I would have thought an eye dropper would hold his silver shower of blessings.

Of course you can be Godmother. In fact, all of i2 can be godparents, except Odeon. I dont want him teaching his spazziness to the poor baby.

That "poor baby" is going to be mighty stupid anyway.  With giant chiclet teeth.   :pentagram:

Dont talk such piffle. It will be a thing of pure beauty, with its angelic looks surpassed only by its mighty Einsteinian intellect.

 :P
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 14, 2012, 12:01:08 PM
Thank you.  Since he/she may inherit a passion for rocks from his father, I'll give him/her the Rock of Gibralter as a christening present.  Since she/he may inherit his mother's business sense, I'll give her Edinburgh Castle.  That place could use some tarting up. 
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 12:11:19 PM
Thank you.  Since he/she may inherit a passion for rocks from his father, I'll give him/her the Rock of Gibralter as a christening present.  Since she/he may inherit his mother's business sense, I'll give her Edinburgh Castle.  That place could use some tarting up.

Thank you your Majesty.
Edinburgh Castle is built upon a large volcanic rock. I think Richard would be very happy living there.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 14, 2012, 12:32:26 PM
I loved Gibralter.


Those were  the days when i used to fly :laugh:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 14, 2012, 12:59:42 PM
Stop insulting my intelligence, Butterflies. You didn't use the word 'essay' when talking abot Les's posts by mistake.

 ??? :facepalm2: ???

Referring to Les' long posts as essays is not an insult. It is a term that is used to jokingly describe any long post here. I think I can safely say, it is not taken as an insult by Les. He even uses the term himself to describe his posts.
I even referred to my first long post in this thread as an essay.

I never thought it would come from you, but this may well have made the top 10 greatest facepalm moments in my time at i2. If you are basing your opinion that I want to argue with Les on the fact that I used the term essays to describe 1 of Les' posts, then you are having an epic aspie moment.


For the record, I apologize to Les for any insult caused in this thread by my use of the ward essays.

I am truly shocked at you Odeon :facepalm2:

I'm basing it on a lot more than that, Butterflies. And now including that you protest a little too much.

We all have our aspie moments of fail here. When I clearly fail, I try to laugh at myself, and accept my mistake.
Continuing to insist that youre right, when you clearly couldnt have been more wrong, just makes you look like you are unable to accept the fact that you made an error. T thought you were bigger than that Odeon.

If I had been trying to goad Les into a fight, dont you think we'd be fighting by now. 3 days, almost 20 pages later, and we still arent fighting. Do you really think Im this poor at starting fights?

I know youre an intelligent man, but I never realized how much of a total spazz you were.

I very much doubt I'm wrong, Butterflies. I'd seriously question my motives if I were you.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 14, 2012, 01:01:50 PM
this argument. 
unless someone wants to say something totally unexpected.

like....penty has a love child shock :o



waiting for air crash investigation to come on 8)


Im 3 months pregnant, and Richards the father :CanofWorms: We wanted to keep it a secret, but I guess its outta the bag now. We never had sex, but he sent me a sample of his manmilk. I got the old turkey baster out, and much to my surprise, it worked.



I dunno how long this argument will stagnate for. The stupidity appears to be increasing exponentially by the page.

Yes. You've been posting a lot.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 01:06:12 PM
Stop insulting my intelligence, Butterflies. You didn't use the word 'essay' when talking abot Les's posts by mistake.

 ??? :facepalm2: ???

Referring to Les' long posts as essays is not an insult. It is a term that is used to jokingly describe any long post here. I think I can safely say, it is not taken as an insult by Les. He even uses the term himself to describe his posts.
I even referred to my first long post in this thread as an essay.

I never thought it would come from you, but this may well have made the top 10 greatest facepalm moments in my time at i2. If you are basing your opinion that I want to argue with Les on the fact that I used the term essays to describe 1 of Les' posts, then you are having an epic aspie moment.


For the record, I apologize to Les for any insult caused in this thread by my use of the ward essays.

I am truly shocked at you Odeon :facepalm2:

I'm basing it on a lot more than that, Butterflies. And now including that you protest a little too much.

We all have our aspie moments of fail here. When I clearly fail, I try to laugh at myself, and accept my mistake.
Continuing to insist that youre right, when you clearly couldnt have been more wrong, just makes you look like you are unable to accept the fact that you made an error. T thought you were bigger than that Odeon.

If I had been trying to goad Les into a fight, dont you think we'd be fighting by now. 3 days, almost 20 pages later, and we still arent fighting. Do you really think Im this poor at starting fights?

I know youre an intelligent man, but I never realized how much of a total spazz you were.

I very much doubt I'm wrong, Butterflies. I'd seriously question my motives if I were you.

Heres an idea for you. Why dont you ask someone who you are friends with, who you respect, who is in a relationhip with Les, is not a spazz, and has no reason to lie for me but is not likely to lie against me out of spite.
Hyke fits the bill perfectly.
Ask her, privately if you wish, if I am trying to instigate a fight with Les.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 14, 2012, 01:18:45 PM
Anything so you won't have to question your own motives, right? I've seen you at this sort of thing before and I'm not convinced.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 01:21:02 PM
Anything so you won't have to question your own motives, right? I've seen you at this sort of thing before and I'm not convinced.

Im telling you to seek advice from someone who is blessed with decent judgement. You obviously arent.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 14, 2012, 01:23:59 PM
Anything so you won't have to question your own motives, right? I've seen you at this sort of thing before and I'm not convinced.

Im telling you to seek advice from someone who is blessed with decent judgement. You obviously arent.

Says the girl who spends dozens of posting trying to convince others that it's about age when it's really only about people she dislikes.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 14, 2012, 01:29:39 PM
On the other hand you have "decided" that the board isn't boring nowadays, which it is. Butterflies and Schleed have very good points.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 01:32:04 PM
Anything so you won't have to question your own motives, right? I've seen you at this sort of thing before and I'm not convinced.

Im telling you to seek advice from someone who is blessed with decent judgement. You obviously arent.

Says the girl who spends dozens of posting trying to convince others that it's about age when it's really only about people she dislikes.

But its not about whether I like someone. Ive made it clear that a lot of my favourite people here are over 40.

Some of my least favourite people are under 30.


Now, for fuck sake Odeon, get a grip and ask someone. Even you cant be arrogant enough to fail to accept that you might be wrong.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 14, 2012, 01:44:19 PM
On the other hand you have "decided" that the board isn't boring nowadays, which it is. Butterflies and Schleed have very good points.

Opinions obviously vary, Lit. Some things are more boring than others but I don't think the board is dying. I'm with Pyraxis on this one.

I've spent page upon page trying to understand what Butterflies' point is. God knows I've asked, and I have been listening to the best of my ability. I can't help thinking that it would have been faster for her to simply admit that it's about people, not age. Easier and far more honest.

Shcleed was far more honest in his approach.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 01:54:54 PM
Anything so you won't have to question your own motives, right? I've seen you at this sort of thing before and I'm not convinced.

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 14, 2012, 02:08:12 PM
What would be the reason that a couple of people who come and go, come and go and come and go be for trying to decide the fate and future for this forum.

You two trying to decide who is cool and who is not

Who is too young or too old.

It would seem to me that you are just shit stirring.

Schleed you think this site is 'boring', well dude your site is twice as so.

Butterflies you are just poking at people, for the hell of it, like usual. What the heck makes you the queen of decide.

you are both pretty fucking boring yourselves.

I have a site now? Get with the times maaaaan

In all seriousness, you are frankly one of the most boring members here. What do you contribute to this forum? Go on, tell me.
smart ass remarks and non-sensical commentary. I do sometimes mingle with the members., however.

But being the loner that I am, I prefer just hanging loose reading the occasional post. Kind of like normal folks do.

What do you contribute lately. Not much. Just the occasional remark. well there is your ongoing convo with butterflies. But it is much ado about nothing.

What happened to your spasticity site, I guess I should go and lurk there for a bit, to see whats what. Unless you have already let it go.

Didnt see anything worthwhile last time I checked in, bout 6 months ago.

So what do I contribute here, not much

But I am a fucking loyal member, with the same fucking rights as you. And I dont go round bad mouthing the place.

Perhaps you could liven things up by cutting and pasting an existing article in its entirety, and then make no comment on it.

:LMAO:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 14, 2012, 02:12:27 PM
I'm happy that Butterflies has spread her wings and no longer has time for the internet, and these boring forums.  I think that says nothing but good things.  I think the rift is irreparable anyway, especially as she doesn't seem particularly interested in continuing to interact with the people she does like in the light of the people that she doesn't. 

On the flip side, I'm not sure what she is hoping to accomplish here, which leaves me wondering if this is in fact an attempt to liven things up to make it worth returning.

 :chin: :hmmm: :jaded: :eyebrow: :scratchhead:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 14, 2012, 02:17:14 PM
Papiliones fortissima puella Quadrantii Vehementiae sunt  :viking:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 14, 2012, 02:19:23 PM
I'm happy that Butterflies has spread her wings and no longer has time for the internet, and these boring forums.  I think that says nothing but good things.  I think the rift is irreparable anyway, especially as she doesn't seem particularly interested in continuing to interact with the people she does like in the light of the people that she doesn't. 

On the flip side, I'm not sure what she is hoping to accomplish here, which leaves me wondering if this is in fact an attempt to liven things up to make it worth returning.

 :chin: :hmmm: :jaded: :eyebrow: :scratchhead:

I don't think she knows, tbh.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 03:25:03 PM
Quote
I'm happy that Butterflies has spread her wings and no longer has time for the internet, and these boring forums.I think that says nothing but good things
I do have less time, but I still have time for the internet.



Quote
I think the rift is irreparable anyway, . 

Dunno if the rift with Odeon is irreparable. This argument seems to have more to do with what he thinks is going on, than what really is. I think he is a bit misguided, but do not consider him bad.



Quote
especially as she doesn't seem particularly interested in continuing to interact with the people she does like in the light of the people that she doesn't.

Sadly, you are probably right. I do still have an interest in interacting with people who are members here, but Im not sure how easily I can do that on this site.



Quote
On the flip side, I'm not sure what she is hoping to accomplish here, which leaves me wondering if this is in fact an attempt to liven things up to make it worth returning.

That is a good thought, and TBH, it's the kind of thing I would do. It wasnt my intention though.


I'll try to explain this to you. Maybe you'll get it, or maybe you wont.
When I first saw your graphs, I thought I would try and give my opinion. I didnt think it would be too controversial, although I knew there might be some disagreement. I thought everyone would be more or less in agreement that the site was struggling, but that there might be some disagreement on whether more young members would be the answer.
I assumed my suggestion of "more young members" would be understood by everyone, and there would either be universal agreement with my suggestion, or more likely a "debate" on whether it was a good idea.

Within a couple of posts, Odeon and Les had started to ask what "young members" meant, and I was unable to explain it to them in a way they could understand.
This was not what I expected. It never occurred to me that my greatest difficulty would be trying to explain to Odeon and Les what "young members" meant. Obviously I failed pretty badly at explaining it to them.

Then it just became completely surreal as it seems to have turned around completely. Odeon is trying to claim that Im trying to fight Les, when Ive clearly been trying pretty hard to avoid getting into a fight with him.



To sum that up quickly, I started out with the intention of putting across my POV on why the site's going downhill. I thought something might have came out of it, but more likely nothing would happen. I felt there was no harm in trying though.
I no longer expect to accomplish anything here. I have no real idea what Im doing here now. I suppose Im just passing time now. 
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 14, 2012, 03:38:29 PM
We can agree on one thing: you failed pretty miserably.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 03:41:26 PM
We can agree on one thing: you failed pretty miserably.

Yes dude. I failed to explain a fairly easy point to you, that many others seemed to understand.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 03:43:15 PM




Quote
I think the rift is irreparable anyway, . 

Dunno if the rift with Odeon is irreparable. This argument seems to have more to do with what he thinks is going on, than what really is. I think he is a bit misguided, but do not consider him bad.
[/quote]

Nah, scrub that. The guys a wanker.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 14, 2012, 03:45:19 PM
We can agree on one thing: you failed pretty miserably.

Yes dude. I failed to explain a fairly easy point to you, that many others seemed to understand.

Actually you never managed to explain it to anyone. It's not easy to explain something you lie about to yourself, is it?



Quote

Nah, scrub that. The guys a wanker.

Wuv you too.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 03:49:11 PM
We can agree on one thing: you failed pretty miserably.

Yes dude. I failed to explain a fairly easy point to you, that many others seemed to understand.

Actually you never managed to explain it to anyone. It's not easy to explain something you lie about to yourself, is it?



Quote

Nah, scrub that. The guys a wanker.

Wuv you too.

How on earth am I lying about thinking the site need young members?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 14, 2012, 03:51:43 PM
I think this debate is kind of fruitless though, in my opinion. A lot of hair splitting.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 14, 2012, 03:52:51 PM
 :deadhorse:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 14, 2012, 03:56:16 PM
We can agree on one thing: you failed pretty miserably.

Yes dude. I failed to explain a fairly easy point to you, that many others seemed to understand.

Actually you never managed to explain it to anyone. It's not easy to explain something you lie about to yourself, is it?



Quote

Nah, scrub that. The guys a wanker.

Wuv you too.

How on earth am I lying about thinking the site need young members?

The ones that aren't necessarily young in physical age but that you like? But wait--you never said that, you just insisted that you saying "young" was you being clear and honest.

Next.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 14, 2012, 03:57:17 PM
I think this debate is kind of fruitless though, in my opinion. A lot of hair splitting.

It hasn't been a debate in a while now.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 03:58:52 PM
We can agree on one thing: you failed pretty miserably.

Yes dude. I failed to explain a fairly easy point to you, that many others seemed to understand.

Actually you never managed to explain it to anyone. It's not easy to explain something you lie about to yourself, is it?



Quote

Nah, scrub that. The guys a wanker.

Wuv you too.

How on earth am I lying about thinking the site need young members?

The ones that aren't necessarily young in physical age but that you like? But wait--you never said that, you just insisted that you saying "young" was you being clear and honest.

Next.

I never said I was being clear. Im sure Ive accepted that I wasnt being very clear. I was being honest though.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 14, 2012, 05:32:58 PM
I believe that you are surprised that when you tell us that you are being honest and such, Butterflies that some doubt your sincerity or intent.
Please don't be surprised.
 Not so long ago a loud faction of primarily younger member including you and Shleed and Adam turned this place upside down. People were leaving and the threads were a clusterfuck. The objects of this said faction? Well as far as Ican make it, the admin here and anyone who ssupported them.
Parts finally put that issue to bed but not before smear campaigning against Odeon and railing against the site and a couple of very blatant efforts to poach the membership to join better sites, newly made and set up for the younger cooler members.
But now you honestly care for this site and you are trust worthy. Now we can credit your words with no underlying subversive motive or intent.
Vague assertions, an appeal to the"younger" members, and in all of this I try and allay my suspicious and just clarify
I more than suspect a political subversive angle. In my eyes it looks that way whether or not there is anything else in that as well. Your past unfortunately determines your credibility on the score.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 14, 2012, 05:38:21 PM
 :intressant:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 14, 2012, 05:51:05 PM
What would be the reason that a couple of people who come and go, come and go and come and go be for trying to decide the fate and future for this forum.

You two trying to decide who is cool and who is not

Who is too young or too old.

It would seem to me that you are just shit stirring.

Schleed you think this site is 'boring', well dude your site is twice as so.

Butterflies you are just poking at people, for the hell of it, like usual. What the heck makes you the queen of decide.

you are both pretty fucking boring yourselves.

I have a site now? Get with the times maaaaan

In all seriousness, you are frankly one of the most boring members here. What do you contribute to this forum? Go on, tell me.
smart ass remarks and non-sensical commentary. I do sometimes mingle with the members., however.

But being the loner that I am, I prefer just hanging loose reading the occasional post. Kind of like normal folks do.

What do you contribute lately. Not much. Just the occasional remark. well there is your ongoing convo with butterflies. But it is much ado about nothing.

What happened to your spasticity site, I guess I should go and lurk there for a bit, to see whats what. Unless you have already let it go.

Didnt see anything worthwhile last time I checked in, bout 6 months ago.

So what do I contribute here, not much

But I am a fucking loyal member, with the same fucking rights as you. And I dont go round bad mouthing the place.

Perhaps you could liven things up by cutting and pasting an existing article in its entirety, and then make no comment on it.
as soon as something interesting comes up, I will
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 05:55:45 PM
I believe that you are surprised that when you tell us that you are being honest and such, Butterflies that some doubt your sincerity or intent.
Please don't be surprised.
 Not so long ago a loud faction of primarily younger member including you and Shleed and Adam turned this place upside down. People were leaving and the threads were a clusterfuck. The objects of this said faction? Well as far as Ican make it, the admin here and anyone who ssupported them.
Parts finally put that issue to bed but not before smear campaigning against Odeon and railing against the site and a couple of very blatant efforts to poach the membership to join better sites, newly made and set up for the younger cooler members.
But now you honestly care for this site and you are trust worthy. Now we can credit your words with no underlying subversive motive or intent.
Vague assertions, an appeal to the"younger" members, and in all of this I try and allay my suspicious and just clarify
I more than suspect a political subversive angle. In my eyes it looks that way whether or not there is anything else in that as well. Your past unfortunately determines your credibility on the score.

I dont care about this site. I had a vague suggestion that I thought might help the site to become something I cared about again.

I dont see why you or Odeon should trust me, just as I certainly dont trust either of you. However, thinking that a boring site needs some more youth is not a lie. It is quite clearly an opinion.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 14, 2012, 06:02:47 PM
I believe that you are surprised that when you tell us that you are being honest and such, Butterflies that some doubt your sincerity or intent.
Please don't be surprised.
 Not so long ago a loud faction of primarily younger member including you and Shleed and Adam turned this place upside down. People were leaving and the threads were a clusterfuck. The objects of this said faction? Well as far as Ican make it, the admin here and anyone who ssupported them.
Parts finally put that issue to bed but not before smear campaigning against Odeon and railing against the site and a couple of very blatant efforts to poach the membership to join better sites, newly made and set up for the younger cooler members.
But now you honestly care for this site and you are trust worthy. Now we can credit your words with no underlying subversive motive or intent.
Vague assertions, an appeal to the"younger" members, and in all of this I try and allay my suspicious and just clarify
I more than suspect a political subversive angle. In my eyes it looks that way whether or not there is anything else in that as well. Your past unfortunately determines your credibility on the score.

I dont care about this site. I had a vague suggestion that I thought might help the site to become something I cared about again.

I dont see why you or Odeon should trust me, just as I certainly dont trust either of you. However, thinking that a boring site needs some more youth is not a lie. It is quite clearly an opinion.
You dont seem to understand that it is not boring to most of us

And that is coming from one of its most boring members, moi

I enjoy keeping up with the various members and their daily posts
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 06:12:42 PM
I believe that you are surprised that when you tell us that you are being honest and such, Butterflies that some doubt your sincerity or intent.
Please don't be surprised.
 Not so long ago a loud faction of primarily younger member including you and Shleed and Adam turned this place upside down. People were leaving and the threads were a clusterfuck. The objects of this said faction? Well as far as Ican make it, the admin here and anyone who ssupported them.
Parts finally put that issue to bed but not before smear campaigning against Odeon and railing against the site and a couple of very blatant efforts to poach the membership to join better sites, newly made and set up for the younger cooler members.
But now you honestly care for this site and you are trust worthy. Now we can credit your words with no underlying subversive motive or intent.
Vague assertions, an appeal to the"younger" members, and in all of this I try and allay my suspicious and just clarify
I more than suspect a political subversive angle. In my eyes it looks that way whether or not there is anything else in that as well. Your past unfortunately determines your credibility on the score.

I dont care about this site. I had a vague suggestion that I thought might help the site to become something I cared about again.

I dont see why you or Odeon should trust me, just as I certainly dont trust either of you. However, thinking that a boring site needs some more youth is not a lie. It is quite clearly an opinion.
You dont seem to understand that it is not boring to most of us

And that is coming from one of its most boring members, moi

I enjoy keeping up with the various members and their daily posts

Im not sure that its not boring to most members. Some people are happy with it as it is though.

I didnt want anything that would make the site worse for you. You may be happy with the site now, but will you still be happy with it if it loses another 5 or 6 regular posters?
Its true that my suggestion might not have immediately made the site better for you, but I would have hoped that trying to make the site a bit more vibrant would have led to more activity, which in turn would have hopefully made the site better for everyone, including you.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 14, 2012, 06:23:13 PM
I believe that you are surprised that when you tell us that you are being honest and such, Butterflies that some doubt your sincerity or intent.
Please don't be surprised.
 Not so long ago a loud faction of primarily younger member including you and Shleed and Adam turned this place upside down. People were leaving and the threads were a clusterfuck. The objects of this said faction? Well as far as Ican make it, the admin here and anyone who ssupported them.
Parts finally put that issue to bed but not before smear campaigning against Odeon and railing against the site and a couple of very blatant efforts to poach the membership to join better sites, newly made and set up for the younger cooler members.
But now you honestly care for this site and you are trust worthy. Now we can credit your words with no underlying subversive motive or intent.
Vague assertions, an appeal to the"younger" members, and in all of this I try and allay my suspicious and just clarify
I more than suspect a political subversive angle. In my eyes it looks that way whether or not there is anything else in that as well. Your past unfortunately determines your credibility on the score.

I dont care about this site. I had a vague suggestion that I thought might help the site to become something I cared about again.

I dont see why you or Odeon should trust me, just as I certainly dont trust either of you. However, thinking that a boring site needs some more youth is not a lie. It is quite clearly an opinion.
You dont seem to understand that it is not boring to most of us

And that is coming from one of its most boring members, moi

I enjoy keeping up with the various members and their daily posts

Im not sure that its not boring to most members. Some people are happy with it as it is though.

I didnt want anything that would make the site worse for you. You may be happy with the site now, but will you still be happy with it if it loses another 5 or 6 regular posters?
Its true that my suggestion might not have immediately made the site better for you, but I would have hoped that trying to make the site a bit more vibrant would have led to more activity, which in turn would have hopefully made the site better for everyone, including you.
Sorry you and schleed cant be trusted.

your true motives are unclear

I am sure not everyone feels that way

You should have done your put downs of the current membership in PM.

That was a bad move, considering the people you were putting down, were watching your conversation

It doesnt matter that you didnt name names outright. I at least understood your meaning

I watched it for a couple of days and finally had enough

Thats my only reason for running my mouth

I am more than happy to go back to being my boring self, it suits me.

Later...........
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 06:31:23 PM
I believe that you are surprised that when you tell us that you are being honest and such, Butterflies that some doubt your sincerity or intent.
Please don't be surprised.
 Not so long ago a loud faction of primarily younger member including you and Shleed and Adam turned this place upside down. People were leaving and the threads were a clusterfuck. The objects of this said faction? Well as far as Ican make it, the admin here and anyone who ssupported them.
Parts finally put that issue to bed but not before smear campaigning against Odeon and railing against the site and a couple of very blatant efforts to poach the membership to join better sites, newly made and set up for the younger cooler members.
But now you honestly care for this site and you are trust worthy. Now we can credit your words with no underlying subversive motive or intent.
Vague assertions, an appeal to the"younger" members, and in all of this I try and allay my suspicious and just clarify
I more than suspect a political subversive angle. In my eyes it looks that way whether or not there is anything else in that as well. Your past unfortunately determines your credibility on the score.

I dont care about this site. I had a vague suggestion that I thought might help the site to become something I cared about again.

I dont see why you or Odeon should trust me, just as I certainly dont trust either of you. However, thinking that a boring site needs some more youth is not a lie. It is quite clearly an opinion.
You dont seem to understand that it is not boring to most of us

And that is coming from one of its most boring members, moi

I enjoy keeping up with the various members and their daily posts

Im not sure that its not boring to most members. Some people are happy with it as it is though.

I didnt want anything that would make the site worse for you. You may be happy with the site now, but will you still be happy with it if it loses another 5 or 6 regular posters?
Its true that my suggestion might not have immediately made the site better for you, but I would have hoped that trying to make the site a bit more vibrant would have led to more activity, which in turn would have hopefully made the site better for everyone, including you.
Sorry you and schleed cant be trusted.

your true motives are unclear

I am sure not everyone feels that way

You should have done your put downs of the current membership in PM.

That was a bad move, considering the people you were putting down, were watching your conversation

It doesnt matter that you didnt name names outright. I at least understood your meaning

I watched it for a couple of days and finally had enough

Thats my only reason for running my mouth

I am more than happy to go back to being my boring self, it suits me.

Later...........

Actually, not sure what current members I was putting down. You might be surprised if you knew the real names of the people I didnt name.
If you thought you were one of them, then you would be mistaken. TBH, I probably hadnt interacted with you in over a year, and had pretty much forgot you existed.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 14, 2012, 06:51:43 PM
I dont mind being forgotten

As long as I dont forget
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 14, 2012, 10:39:38 PM
I believe that you are surprised that when you tell us that you are being honest and such, Butterflies that some doubt your sinceerity or intent.
Please don't be surprised.
 Not so long ago a loud faction of primarily younger member including you and Shleed and Adam turned this place upside down. People were leaving and the threads were a clusterfuck. The objects of this said faction? Well as far as I can make it, the admin here and anyone who supported them.
Parts finally put that issue to bed but not before smear campaigning against Odeon and railing against the site and a couple of very blatant efforts to poach the membership to join better sites, newly made and set up for the younger cooler members.
But now you honestly care for this site and you are trust worthy. Now we can credit your words with no underlying subversive motive or intent.
Vague assertions, an appeal to the"younger" members, and in all of this I try and allay my suspicious and just clarify
I more than suspect a political subversive angle. In my eyes it looks that way whether or not there is anything else in that as well. Your past unfortunately determines your credibility on the score.

I dont care about this site. I had a vague suggestion that I thought might help the site to become something I cared about again.

I dont see why you or Odeon should trust me, just as I certainly dont trust either of you. However, thinking that a boring site needs some more youth is not a lie. It is quite clearly an opinion.
You dont seem to understand that it is not boring to most of us

And that is coming from one of its most boring members, moi

I enjoy keeping up with the various members and their daily posts

Im not sure that its not boring to most members. Some people are happy with it as it is though.

I didnt want anything that would make the site worse for you. You may be happy with the site now, but will you still be happy with it if it loses another 5 or 6 regular posters?
Its true that my suggestion might not have immediately made the site better for you, but I would have hoped that trying to make the site a bit more vibrant would have led to more activity, which in turn would have hopefully made the site better for everyone, including you.

Ah so we finally get there.
I was right, it seems to second guess your intentions and motives. It did tend  to resemble  a time that you and a handful of others tried to  fuck over the forum and create enough discord to convince the people you wanted away from the site.
After the whole " Make the site appealing to me or I will leave and so will another 4-5 others"...well yes rather telling

It is all good. The vague references and the want of explaining a downturn in activity as the site dying. The saying that you were not sure what needed changing in the site or prepared to change things yourself but  happy to  basically say the site was crap. Your resistance to questioning and now this.
You are right about one thing , you so not care about the site.
Why bother with all this posting though, we could have arrived at this point a lot quicker and more honestly?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 11:19:19 PM
I believe that you are surprised that when you tell us that you are being honest and such, Butterflies that some doubt your sinceerity or intent.
Please don't be surprised.
 Not so long ago a loud faction of primarily younger member including you and Shleed and Adam turned this place upside down. People were leaving and the threads were a clusterfuck. The objects of this said faction? Well as far as Ican make it, the admin here and anyone who ssupported them.
Parts finally put that issue to bed but not before smear campaigning against Odeon and railing against the site and a couple of very blatant efforts to poach the membership to join better sites, newly made and set up for the younger cooler members.
But now you honestly care for this site and you are trust worthy. Now we can credit your words with no underlying subversive motive or intent.
Vague assertions, an appeal to the"younger" members, and in all of this I try and allay my suspicious and just clarify
I more than suspect a political subversive angle. In my eyes it looks that way whether or not there is anything else in that as well. Your past unfortunately determines your credibility on the score.

I dont care about this site. I had a vague suggestion that I thought might help the site to become something I cared about again.

I dont see why you or Odeon should trust me, just as I certainly dont trust either of you. However, thinking that a boring site needs some more youth is not a lie. It is quite clearly an opinion.
You dont seem to understand that it is not boring to most of us

And that is coming from one of its most boring members, moi

I enjoy keeping up with the various members and their daily posts

Im not sure that its not boring to most members. Some people are happy with it as it is though.

I didnt want anything that would make the site worse for you. You may be happy with the site now, but will you still be happy with it if it loses another 5 or 6 regular posters?
Its true that my suggestion might not have immediately made the site better for you, but I would have hoped that trying to make the site a bit more vibrant would have led to more activity, which in turn would have hopefully made the site better for everyone, including you.

Ah so we finally get there.
I was right, it seems to second guess your intentions and motives. It did tend  to resemble  a time that you and a handful of others tried to  fuck over the forum and create enough discord to convince the people you wanted away from the site.
After the whole " Make the site appealing to me or I will leave and so will another 4-5 others"...well yes rather telling

It is all good. The vague reference s and the want of explain a downturn in activity as the site dying. The saying that you were not sure what needed changing in the site or prepared to change things yourself but  happy to  basically saythe site was crap. Your resistance to questioning and now this.
You are right about one thing , you so not care about the site.
Why borher with all this posts ring thoufh , we could have arrived at this point a lot quicker and more honestly?

That is absurd ??? You have totally misinterpreted my comment. I was talking about what will happen if the downward spiral in the membership continues.

How on Earth can I possibly remove 4-5 active members here. I'm not totally sure I even have 4-5 friends who still post regularly here, let alone 4-5 people who could be so influenced by me as to leave the site because Im not being entertained.

This almost tops Odeons assertion that I am actively trying to start a fight with you.
I think Im really beginning to see why you two get on so well.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 14, 2012, 11:27:25 PM
@Les. You do realize that the site is averaging around 15 members online a day this month? Do you seriously think that I could possibly believe that almost one third of the site would leave if I told them to?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 15, 2012, 03:42:21 AM
I believe that you are surprised that when you tell us that you are being honest and such, Butterflies that some doubt your sincerity or intent.
Please don't be surprised.
 Not so long ago a loud faction of primarily younger member including you and Shleed and Adam turned this place upside down. People were leaving and the threads were a clusterfuck. The objects of this said faction? Well as far as Ican make it, the admin here and anyone who ssupported them.
Parts finally put that issue to bed but not before smear campaigning against Odeon and railing against the site and a couple of very blatant efforts to poach the membership to join better sites, newly made and set up for the younger cooler members.
But now you honestly care for this site and you are trust worthy. Now we can credit your words with no underlying subversive motive or intent.
Vague assertions, an appeal to the"younger" members, and in all of this I try and allay my suspicious and just clarify
I more than suspect a political subversive angle. In my eyes it looks that way whether or not there is anything else in that as well. Your past unfortunately determines your credibility on the score.

I dont care about this site. I had a vague suggestion that I thought might help the site to become something I cared about again.

I dont see why you or Odeon should trust me, just as I certainly dont trust either of you. However, thinking that a boring site needs some more youth is not a lie. It is quite clearly an opinion.

Is that young as in physically young, or young as in mind and spirit? If the latter, how about defining what it means, once and for all?

I'd also be interested in knowing what such an infusion of fresh blood could do in practical terms. Would their youth, however defined, automatically generate more interesting topics and opinions?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 15, 2012, 04:35:13 AM
I dont care about this site. I had a vague suggestion that I thought might help the site to become something I cared about again.

I dont see why you or Odeon should trust me, just as I certainly dont trust either of you. However, thinking that a boring site needs some more youth is not a lie. It is quite clearly an opinion.

In a way, I think you do. It was important for you, when you joined, it was amazing for you to be here then. And, you want it to be that amazing again. You do care, for what it was.




Is the site in a bad shape at the moment?
Don't really have an eye for that. Somehow me and the computer are not interacting that much lately.

Would drama help?
Most of drama happening here is boring as hell in my opinion. Especially drama between people that is going on for a long time. No new views, same sentences, same replies. Nothing constructive. And, because of all the repetition, the funfactor is gone too.
Sometimes there is quality drama, with true discussions, and, when really good, it is constructive too. It's where members can surprise me. Very rare, quality drama.

It depends on me, and on I2, how I roam around here. Lately, I skip 75% or more of the posts of MLA, Richard and Lestat, because it is the usual jabbing towards each other. But, all three also now and then surprise me with posts I like, or really like.
Would love that 75% boring "you ....." to become less, and, when there, more creative in insulting, but, when that is what they love, that is what they love.

The drama in this thread has become boring by now, because it is a repetition of moves, and even bringing in older moves, from similar drama years back. No new developments. So, time to drop it, and to derail it.

The discussion will start again, some day. But, what can one change on a site that isn't moderated.

A moderated site exists and is the way it is because of it's members, an unmoderated site even more.

The only change I see possible is that arcade Bodie mentioned, and, maybe something in the lay-out/categorising of threads. The latter would take lots of time. And, lots of people would hate it, because of the changes. So, not seeing that happen.

For the rest, it is the members, the members that are here will shape what it is, and, that will attract some members, where others will hate it, for the same reason.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 15, 2012, 04:44:41 AM
@Les. You do realize that the site is averaging around 15 members online a day this month? Do you seriously think that I could possibly believe that almost one third of the site would leave if I told them to?

I think that it is an uninteresting question.
I will show you some more interesting questions and then we can talk about what is absurd.
Do I think that if you could reduce the site's membership that you would?
Do I think that alluding to the site dying and such is not merely an acknowledgement of a general decline in activity (which everyone on here that has been with here any decent amount of time, know peaks and troughs)?
Do you think that quite a bit of that membership drop may have had more than a little do to with a lot of the culture you were trying to foster here a little while back?
Do you think then taking up this question of membership drop strange especially after telling the membership how shit the site and administration was and how much better and cooler the spasticity site/s were?
Do you think that he people in your little clique you would have counted as "young" and their postings as "vibrant"?
Do you think that all those (including the younger members) that disagreed with you that you would have ascribed as being young and vibrant whereas the older ones like Scrap who backed your little collective, you would have ascribed young at heart?
Does this say anything about what is "young" or "youthful" apart from to say that it is a way of saying people who agree with you and post like you? Do you think that a little egotistical?
Do you belief when you bint, Adam, Shleed, Scrap and Co. were posting bullshit 24/7 on here that it was vibrant or do you think it was damaging and non-constructive for the site?
Do you think that taking up a similar "youth" position on I2 looks a little suspect?
Do you think that talking about numbers further dwindling is wishful thinking?
Do you think that talking about your want for I2 to "post more interestingly or they will bore you further and you will leave" is constructive, helpful, instructive OR absurd, egotistical and non-helpful?
Do you think that if you were wanting something on here that something is stopping you from putting it up rather than to mention it vaguely in hope people cater specifically to your vague wants?

Now to answer your question...No. It would be absurd to think after you more blatantly trawled for members here and to encourage members awat from here to Spasticity and were a failure, that I would exp[ect your actions would produce better results.
You were not trying to indicate that anyone might believe that were you Butterflies? That would be absurd.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 15, 2012, 05:35:45 AM
I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this? :dunno:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 15, 2012, 05:53:34 AM
I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this? :dunno:
:agreed: :indeed: :viking: :plus:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 15, 2012, 06:08:26 AM
I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this? :dunno:

Yes.
Hell yes.
If you want mor nudes...post more nudes. If you think there ought to be more lolcats and threads of online roleplaying gam,es...do that. Like threads about sex? Nothing stopping you.

OR

You could say "Gee this site sucks. I really don't like it because it is not vibrant enough for my tastes. i don't know what to suggest and i don't care about the site, but it has to change. Young people are the answer to the vibrance problem and by young people, i do not mean young people but "young people" if you know what i mean. nudge nudge. By Nudge nudge i mean people who i like - regardless of their age. So more people should be on here that I like and who post stuff I like. Of course sometimes those same sort of people posting stuff I like negatively affects the forum and causes people to leave and man of them are the younger and/or newer members not the older entrenched members - but let's not go there. I do not want to really help here because I dislike the site BUT if you people can lift your game, I may stay. If you don't I will leave and you really don't want that because others will leave. You know you want me"

Well Bodie when I say "YOU could say", I don't mean "you". You are not that silly or full of yourself. It would be a silly position and the posting what makes you happy and the site happyy and entertaining is the better position.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 15, 2012, 06:09:09 AM
I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this? :dunno:

QFT

And no, why would I want to? If somebody wants a site for people in the 20s or 30s or whatever, start one.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: El on November 15, 2012, 06:22:50 AM
I think it is best not to try.  There will be drama on here again, i feel sure.

Probably just a quiet spell.  I can always make some more posts about mirror sex and submissive sex?  Or about my insatiable desire for a damn good rodgering?    >:D
When and where did you talk about mirror sex?  That sounds like it could be one of a couple of things.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: El on November 15, 2012, 06:26:39 AM
I think the clear solution is for all members who have anything like "lives" to drop out of school, quit our jobs, leave our partners, abandon our friends, drop our kids off in orphanages, and do nothing but stir up drama with each other here to compensate for the voids we've created in our own existences.  Everyone who does not have any of these things should have a go at these things, and then complain about the results, whatever the results may be.

Also, we need more pictures of cats and of breasts.  And outrageous kinkiness, and more scandals.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 15, 2012, 06:50:11 AM
You know this is meant to happen, though.  AFAIK and for as long back as i remember there is meant to be a young/old divide.

You can say young at heart, youth, or whatever but it is not unusual for for those at one end of the scale to feel disgruntled/ misunderstood by the other end.

Sometimes meeting in the middle or finding some common ground just isn't possible.  Maybe it is not meant to.

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 15, 2012, 06:54:49 AM
I think it is best not to try.  There will be drama on here again, i feel sure.

Probably just a quiet spell.  I can always make some more posts about mirror sex and submissive sex?  Or about my insatiable desire for a damn good rodgering?    >:D
When and where did you talk about mirror sex?  That sounds like it could be one of a couple of things.

Reflective Katoptronaphiliac  -  it's in the name.

Can't recall where and when i have spoken about this.  I have, though.  Several times.  Tend to STFU when no one responds.  If i had any inclination that this was a shared fantasy by anyone here i would be happy to open dialogue again.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 15, 2012, 07:09:32 AM
I think it is best not to try.  There will be drama on here again, i feel sure.

Probably just a quiet spell.  I can always make some more posts about mirror sex and submissive sex?  Or about my insatiable desire for a damn good rodgering?    >:D
When and where did you talk about mirror sex?  That sounds like it could be one of a couple of things.

Reflective Katoptronaphiliac  -  it's in the name.

Can't recall where and when i have spoken about this.  I have, though.  Several times.  Tend to STFU when no one responds.  If i had any inclination that this was a shared fantasy by anyone here i would be happy to open dialogue again.

I think it is best not to try.  There will be drama on here again, i feel sure.

Probably just a quiet spell.  I can always make some more posts about mirror sex and submissive sex?  Or about my insatiable desire for a damn good rodgering?    >:D

Can't speak for anyone else, but that'd work for me
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 15, 2012, 07:51:28 AM
I miss Bint and Squiddy. I also find some of the talk about missing the drama and dynamics of 2010 funny because I could just as easily pine for 2006/2007. Things weren't stable then. We had admins switching out every month, the unknown question of who would run the site, and while the endless debates about self-government got tedious, they were at least fun for a while.

Now there aren't enough unhappy people to sustain a new "village", but nor are they satisfied with the existing one. I suspect that's human nature.

Autism is seen differently too. There isn't the same rush of people who had a lifetime of disenfranchisement and then for the first time found other people like them and explanation of their lives.

I've never seen a backlash against cliques (ooh dirty word) like you can get here. That tendency of people to group up with those they like and "other" anyone who doesn't fit the criteria. I know this is another one that's been debated ad nauseum.

I think one of the erroneous assumptions is that a smaller clique must leave and find their own place which they can run as they see fit, in order to be happy. It actually sucks running a site. A lot of thankless work and a lot of people pissed off at you without being willing to lend a hand to making things better. Why can't more than one clique exist in the same space? Then there will be an ongoing more thriving dynamic as the different polarized groups interact in the same space. Instead of striking out at Butterflies' (Shleed's? Adam's? Bodie's) desire for a group like the one that was gathered in 2010, why not accept it?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 15, 2012, 08:11:23 AM
I miss Bint and Squiddy. I also find some of the talk about missing the drama and dynamics of 2010 funny because I could just as easily pine for 2006/2007. Things weren't stable then. We had admins switching out every month, the unknown question of who would run the site, and while the endless debates about self-government got tedious, they were at least fun for a while.

Now there aren't enough unhappy people to sustain a new "village", but nor are they satisfied with the existing one. I suspect that's human nature.

Autism is seen differently too. There isn't the same rush of people who had a lifetime of disenfranchisement and then for the first time found other people like them and explanation of their lives.

I've never seen a backlash against cliques (ooh dirty word) like you can get here. That tendency of people to group up with those they like and "other" anyone who doesn't fit the criteria. I know this is another one that's been debated ad nauseum.

I think one of the erroneous assumptions is that a smaller clique must leave and find their own place which they can run as they see fit, in order to be happy. It actually sucks running a site. A lot of thankless work and a lot of people pissed off at you without being willing to lend a hand to making things better. Why can't more than one clique exist in the same space? Then there will be an ongoing more thriving dynamic as the different polarized groups interact in the same space. Instead of striking out at Butterflies' (Shleed's? Adam's? Bodie's) desire for a group like the one that was gathered in 2010, why not accept it?

Pyraxis, whoever said they could not?
When Butterflies thinks on the time when she first started she is expressing her views of the time as being a good time on here .There were a lot of the same faces and a few more tht have since left. Was there a want from butterflies to go off and make a new group then? Was there a want from any of the other members for Butterflies to go off? Was there such a big problem in her mind of the older members here being....well....not young?
I think you know the answers, and suggesting that there is a reluctance or inability for people to accept others here is silly isn't it?
The problem is if you are well placed and well liked and so on, and then you fuck over people, those people tend to not hold you in the same esteem as you did before you fucked them over. THAT is sensible. Others would likely treat you with caution as they think that you have lost credibility and trust, and they too do not want to expose themselves to you just to let you fuck them over
So let's not pretend that this is about people not able to accept others because they are different.
Not at all what you are trying is it Py?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 15, 2012, 08:39:01 AM
It actually sucks running a site.

QFT
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Peter on November 15, 2012, 10:15:30 AM
I think the clear solution is for all members who have anything like "lives" to drop out of school, quit our jobs, leave our partners, abandon our friends, drop our kids off in orphanages, and do nothing but stir up drama with each other here to compensate for the voids we've created in our own existences.  Everyone who does not have any of these things should have a go at these things, and then complain about the results, whatever the results may be.

Also, we need more pictures of cats and of breasts.  And outrageous kinkiness, and more scandals.

I vote for you and Butterflies hooking up and then letting us know all about it with detailed descriptions and nudie pics.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 10:40:00 AM
In a way, I think you do. It was important for you, when you joined, it was amazing for you to be here then. And, you want it to be that amazing again. You do care, for what it was.

Yes. I care for what the site was, and would genuinely love to have that again. I cared for the site a lot back then.
I dont care about the site as it is now though. I dont really care about the future of the site, unless it was to become something I liked again.


Quote
Would drama help?
Most of drama happening here is boring as hell in my opinion. Especially drama between people that is going on for a long time. No new views, same sentences, same replies. Nothing constructive. And, because of all the repetition, the funfactor is gone too.
Sometimes there is quality drama, with true discussions, and, when really good, it is constructive too. It's where members can surprise me. Very rare, quality drama.

I think thats an interesting point. When I say drama, a lot of you guys think "fighting." Obviously some drama is fighting, but not all drama is fighting. I suppose "action" may be a better description than "drama."

For example, the drama that happened a year ago was not good at all. I did not enjoy it, it was also very bad for the site.
However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done, the drama with Parakeet was among the funniest "drama" I was involved in. I think it was good drama, or at least, fun drama. I think it livened up the site for a while.

Long bitter feuds may be "drama," but they help nobody. Fun "drama" is IMO good for the site.
This site needs fun "drama" IMO.

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 11:06:26 AM
I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this? :dunno:

I have to be honest, and say I dont really agree with most of this.

Quote
I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members
I think that would be a bad idea. When the site worked, a large part of what was good about the site was the interaction between young and old.

Quote
It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.
No, that is not the case at all. I would like to see a better mix of people.
I want the atmosphere that existed in the past. To give a crappy analogy, in the past, the site had a pub atmosphere, for want of a different word. There was the oldies sipping their beer quietly and playing bridge, and a more raucous group of youngsters getting pissed at the door, shouting abuse at passers by.
Now that the youngsters have largely faded away, the atmosphere has changed from a pub atmosphere, to genteel coffee shop atmosphere.



Quote
In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

TBH, lack of motivation. I had enough motivation to offer a suggestion, and try to explain my views. I didnt have the motivation to take an active role in trying to improve things.



Quote
The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this?
That should be fairly obvious. Odeon and Les. I voiced an opinion that was at worst, mildly controversial. Almost 25 pages on, they are still going on about it. They have each thrown at least one absurd slice of paranoia at me, and Les still appears to be going strong.
I could easily stay here and post cute pics of cats, and funny memes/jokes. Thats just not me though.
It seems that if I stay here, and be myself, I will have the Chuckle Brothers on my back at every opportunity.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 11:10:19 AM
I miss Bint and Squiddy. I also find some of the talk about missing the drama and dynamics of 2010 funny because I could just as easily pine for 2006/2007. Things weren't stable then. We had admins switching out every month, the unknown question of who would run the site, and while the endless debates about self-government got tedious, they were at least fun for a while.

Now there aren't enough unhappy people to sustain a new "village", but nor are they satisfied with the existing one. I suspect that's human nature.

Autism is seen differently too. There isn't the same rush of people who had a lifetime of disenfranchisement and then for the first time found other people like them and explanation of their lives.

I've never seen a backlash against cliques (ooh dirty word) like you can get here. That tendency of people to group up with those they like and "other" anyone who doesn't fit the criteria. I know this is another one that's been debated ad nauseum.

I think one of the erroneous assumptions is that a smaller clique must leave and find their own place which they can run as they see fit, in order to be happy. It actually sucks running a site. A lot of thankless work and a lot of people pissed off at you without being willing to lend a hand to making things better. Why can't more than one clique exist in the same space? Then there will be an ongoing more thriving dynamic as the different polarized groups interact in the same space. Instead of striking out at Butterflies' (Shleed's? Adam's? Bodie's) desire for a group like the one that was gathered in 2010, why not accept it?

Pyraxis, whoever said they could not?
When Butterflies thinks on the time when she first started she is expressing her views of the time as being a good time on here .There were a lot of the same faces and a few more tht have since left. Was there a want from butterflies to go off and make a new group then? Was there a want from any of the other members for Butterflies to go off? Was there such a big problem in her mind of the older members here being....well....not young?
I think you know the answers, and suggesting that there is a reluctance or inability for people to accept others here is silly isn't it?
The problem is if you are well placed and well liked and so on, and then you fuck over people, those people tend to not hold you in the same esteem as you did before you fucked them over. THAT is sensible. Others would likely treat you with caution as they think that you have lost credibility and trust, and they too do not want to expose themselves to you just to let you fuck them over
So let's not pretend that this is about people not able to accept others because they are different.
Not at all what you are trying is it Py?


And, the bullshit starts again. I didnt fuck anyone over. I know you like to present your opinions as fact, but thats just pathetic.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 11:14:34 AM
I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this? :dunno:

Yes.
Hell yes.
If you want mor nudes...post more nudes. If you think there ought to be more lolcats and threads of online roleplaying gam,es...do that. Like threads about sex? Nothing stopping you.

OR

You could say "Gee this site sucks. I really don't like it because it is not vibrant enough for my tastes. i don't know what to suggest and i don't care about the site, but it has to change. Young people are the answer to the vibrance problem and by young people, i do not mean young people but "young people" if you know what i mean. nudge nudge. By Nudge nudge i mean people who i like - regardless of their age. So more people should be on here that I like and who post stuff I like. Of course sometimes those same sort of people posting stuff I like negatively affects the forum and causes people to leave and man of them are the younger and/or newer members not the older entrenched members - but let's not go there. I do not want to really help here because I dislike the site BUT if you people can lift your game, I may stay. If you don't I will leave and you really don't want that because others will leave. You know you want me"

Well Bodie when I say "YOU could say", I don't mean "you". You are not that silly or full of yourself. It would be a silly position and the posting what makes you happy and the site happyy and entertaining is the better position.

Yes. Bullshit is so much truer when its presented in the form of a rambling essay.

I wonder who the gullible fools will be who believe you this time.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 15, 2012, 12:04:08 PM
Papiliones:  :viking:

Sir Les:  :thumbdn:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 15, 2012, 12:15:03 PM
When this thread hits 30 pages, everyone wins a puppy!
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 12:19:25 PM
Papiliones:  :viking:

Sir Les:  :thumbdn:

 :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 15, 2012, 01:00:15 PM
That should be fairly obvious. Odeon and Les. I voiced an opinion that was at worst, mildly controversial. Almost 25 pages on, they are still going on about it. They have each thrown at least one absurd slice of paranoia at me, and Les still appears to be going strong.
I could easily stay here and post cute pics of cats, and funny memes/jokes. Thats just not me though.
It seems that if I stay here, and be myself, I will have the Chuckle Brothers on my back at every opportunity.

Just imagine what it might have been like if you had tried to answer a simple question instead. Now all that is left for you is your usual rewrite.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 15, 2012, 01:03:42 PM
I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this? :dunno:

Yes.
Hell yes.
If you want mor nudes...post more nudes. If you think there ought to be more lolcats and threads of online roleplaying gam,es...do that. Like threads about sex? Nothing stopping you.

OR

You could say "Gee this site sucks. I really don't like it because it is not vibrant enough for my tastes. i don't know what to suggest and i don't care about the site, but it has to change. Young people are the answer to the vibrance problem and by young people, i do not mean young people but "young people" if you know what i mean. nudge nudge. By Nudge nudge i mean people who i like - regardless of their age. So more people should be on here that I like and who post stuff I like. Of course sometimes those same sort of people posting stuff I like negatively affects the forum and causes people to leave and man of them are the younger and/or newer members not the older entrenched members - but let's not go there. I do not want to really help here because I dislike the site BUT if you people can lift your game, I may stay. If you don't I will leave and you really don't want that because others will leave. You know you want me"

Well Bodie when I say "YOU could say", I don't mean "you". You are not that silly or full of yourself. It would be a silly position and the posting what makes you happy and the site happyy and entertaining is the better position.

Yes. Bullshit is so much truer when its presented in the form of a rambling essay.

I wonder who the gullible fools will be who believe you this time.

Oh, but you are fairly transparent now, after you disagreed with most of what Bodie suggested.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 01:20:47 PM
That should be fairly obvious. Odeon and Les. I voiced an opinion that was at worst, mildly controversial. Almost 25 pages on, they are still going on about it. They have each thrown at least one absurd slice of paranoia at me, and Les still appears to be going strong.
I could easily stay here and post cute pics of cats, and funny memes/jokes. Thats just not me though.
It seems that if I stay here, and be myself, I will have the Chuckle Brothers on my back at every opportunity.

Just imagine what it might have been like if you had tried to answer a simple question instead. Now all that is left for you is your usual rewrite.

I couldnt answer the question in a way you were able to understand. I tried though.




I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this? :dunno:

Yes.
Hell yes.
If you want mor nudes...post more nudes. If you think there ought to be more lolcats and threads of online roleplaying gam,es...do that. Like threads about sex? Nothing stopping you.

OR

You could say "Gee this site sucks. I really don't like it because it is not vibrant enough for my tastes. i don't know what to suggest and i don't care about the site, but it has to change. Young people are the answer to the vibrance problem and by young people, i do not mean young people but "young people" if you know what i mean. nudge nudge. By Nudge nudge i mean people who i like - regardless of their age. So more people should be on here that I like and who post stuff I like. Of course sometimes those same sort of people posting stuff I like negatively affects the forum and causes people to leave and man of them are the younger and/or newer members not the older entrenched members - but let's not go there. I do not want to really help here because I dislike the site BUT if you people can lift your game, I may stay. If you don't I will leave and you really don't want that because others will leave. You know you want me"

Well Bodie when I say "YOU could say", I don't mean "you". You are not that silly or full of yourself. It would be a silly position and the posting what makes you happy and the site happyy and entertaining is the better position.

Yes. Bullshit is so much truer when its presented in the form of a rambling essay.

I wonder who the gullible fools will be who believe you this time.

Oh, but you are fairly transparent now, after you disagreed with most of what Bodie suggested.
I dont understand what that means. I didnt feel that what Bod said reflected what I was trying to say. I tried to explain why I felt that way.
Bod is definitely someone I see as a friend, but Im half expecting you to try and claim that Im trying to start a fight with her now.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 15, 2012, 01:29:02 PM
That should be fairly obvious. Odeon and Les. I voiced an opinion that was at worst, mildly controversial. Almost 25 pages on, they are still going on about it. They have each thrown at least one absurd slice of paranoia at me, and Les still appears to be going strong.
I could easily stay here and post cute pics of cats, and funny memes/jokes. Thats just not me though.
It seems that if I stay here, and be myself, I will have the Chuckle Brothers on my back at every opportunity.

Just imagine what it might have been like if you had tried to answer a simple question instead. Now all that is left for you is your usual rewrite.

I couldnt answer the question in a way you were able to understand. I tried though.

As I said, rewriting is what you have left now.




Quote
I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this? :dunno:

Yes.
Hell yes.
If you want mor nudes...post more nudes. If you think there ought to be more lolcats and threads of online roleplaying gam,es...do that. Like threads about sex? Nothing stopping you.

OR

You could say "Gee this site sucks. I really don't like it because it is not vibrant enough for my tastes. i don't know what to suggest and i don't care about the site, but it has to change. Young people are the answer to the vibrance problem and by young people, i do not mean young people but "young people" if you know what i mean. nudge nudge. By Nudge nudge i mean people who i like - regardless of their age. So more people should be on here that I like and who post stuff I like. Of course sometimes those same sort of people posting stuff I like negatively affects the forum and causes people to leave and man of them are the younger and/or newer members not the older entrenched members - but let's not go there. I do not want to really help here because I dislike the site BUT if you people can lift your game, I may stay. If you don't I will leave and you really don't want that because others will leave. You know you want me"

Well Bodie when I say "YOU could say", I don't mean "you". You are not that silly or full of yourself. It would be a silly position and the posting what makes you happy and the site happyy and entertaining is the better position.

Yes. Bullshit is so much truer when its presented in the form of a rambling essay.

I wonder who the gullible fools will be who believe you this time.

Oh, but you are fairly transparent now, after you disagreed with most of what Bodie suggested.
I dont understand what that means. I didnt feel that what Bod said reflected what I was trying to say. I tried to explain why I felt that way.
Bod is definitely someone I see as a friend, but Im half expecting you to try and claim that Im trying to start a fight with her now.

Allow me to quote what you wrote in reply to Bodie:

Quote
I have to be honest, and say I dont really agree with most of this.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 01:33:27 PM
That should be fairly obvious. Odeon and Les. I voiced an opinion that was at worst, mildly controversial. Almost 25 pages on, they are still going on about it. They have each thrown at least one absurd slice of paranoia at me, and Les still appears to be going strong.
I could easily stay here and post cute pics of cats, and funny memes/jokes. Thats just not me though.
It seems that if I stay here, and be myself, I will have the Chuckle Brothers on my back at every opportunity.

Just imagine what it might have been like if you had tried to answer a simple question instead. Now all that is left for you is your usual rewrite.

I couldnt answer the question in a way you were able to understand. I tried though.

As I said, rewriting is what you have left now.


 ???

Quote
Allow me to quote what you wrote in reply to Bodie:
Quote
I have to be honest, and say I dont really agree with most of this.
I really have no idea what point youre trying to make here. Why dont you just say what you mean? Am I not allowed to disagree with a friend?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 15, 2012, 02:32:25 PM
Bodie made some very simple and constructive suggestions about how to change the site, like trying to fill it with stuff you like, ignoring people and posts you don't care about, things like that. That's what you disagreed with, yet you've been completely useless at explaining what you'd like to do instead. I know, you claim to have tried but anyone who bothers to read through the thread will see that you actually haven't. Well, either that or you are just about the worst communicator in the history of the site, Randy included.

You can disagree with anyone you like, Butterflies, friends and foes alike, but if you don't present viable alternatives, then don't you think whining about this site while suggesting yet another group for the young and the vibrant is just a tad arrogant?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 15, 2012, 02:36:21 PM
I've not read thru the last few pages and don't wanna get into it all tbh, Im trying to limit my internet time over the next couple weeks so dont wanna get into a big thing - will just say that for the record, I don't dislike all the oldies or anything. Or even the people I sometimes find boring. It's just not my kinda thing when that is the general atmosphere. Dunno if I'm explaining myself well. Actually I do - I'm obviously NOT expaining myself well but this is the best I can do atm. It's like elderly relatives you like, enjoy spending time with now and then, but you'd get bored if you had to spend a whole week with just them, right? Anyway, don't bother asking me any questions or trying to counter anything Im saying, as I'm not saying it to persuade you of anything etc, just wanted to clarify that I don't mean all this in the way I think it may have come across.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 15, 2012, 02:41:43 PM
I've not read thru the last few pages and don't wanna get into it all tbh, Im trying to limit my internet time over the next couple weeks so dont wanna get into a big thing - will just say that for the record, I don't dislike all the oldies or anything. Or even the people I sometimes find boring. It's just not my kinda thing when that is the general atmosphere. Dunno if I'm explaining myself well. Actually I do - I'm obviously NOT expaining myself well but this is the best I can do atm. It's like elderly relatives you like, enjoy spending time with now and then, but you'd get bored if you had to spend a whole week with just them, right? Anyway, don't bother asking me any questions or trying to counter anything Im saying, as I'm not saying it to persuade you of anything etc, just wanted to clarify that I don't mean all this in the way I think it may have come across.

Adam, it's OK. I don't mind and I won't ask questions or anything.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 02:57:15 PM


You can disagree with anyone you like, Butterflies, friends and foes alike, but if you don't present viable alternatives, then don't you think whining about this site while suggesting yet another group for the young and the vibrant is just a tad arrogant?

Youre the one that is showing true arrogance here Odeon.
You hound my posts, demanding that I clarify every point I try to make. If I make any mistake, you will jump on me.
I have not suggested yet another new group for young vibrant aspies. Schleed has started a FB group, and he invited me to join. AFAIK, everyone here who is on FB has been invited to join.
Now, clearly you are wrong here, so it just remains to be seen whether you have the humility to admit your mistake and offer an apology like I did with Les, or whether you continue true to form and arrogantly try to claim that you are somehow right.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 15, 2012, 03:00:48 PM
It's one of these issues where he has "decided" that he is right.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 03:03:06 PM
It's one of these issues where he has "decided" that he is right.

There can be no other way in his mind. Of course, Im the one being arrogant.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 03:11:19 PM
Bodie made some very simple and constructive suggestions about how to change the site, like trying to fill it with stuff you like, ignoring people and posts you don't care about, things like that. That's what you disagreed with,

No, thats quite clearly not the case. I would have preferred not to pick through Bods post for your benefit, but I have little choice. Sorry Bod.

Quote
Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.
I just dont think that would be a good idea.


Quote
It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty
She is trying to explain what she thinks I was trying to say. This was not what I was trying to say.


Quote
The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this?
I explained to her what was stopping me from posting.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 15, 2012, 03:19:29 PM


You can disagree with anyone you like, Butterflies, friends and foes alike, but if you don't present viable alternatives, then don't you think whining about this site while suggesting yet another group for the young and the vibrant is just a tad arrogant?

Youre the one that is showing true arrogance here Odeon.
You hound my posts, demanding that I clarify every point I try to make. If I make any mistake, you will jump on me.
I have not suggested yet another new group for young vibrant aspies. Schleed has started a FB group, and he invited me to join. AFAIK, everyone here who is on FB has been invited to join.
Now, clearly you are wrong here, so it just remains to be seen whether you have the humility to admit your mistake and offer an apology like I did with Les, or whether you continue true to form and arrogantly try to claim that you are somehow right.

:LMAO:

Hounded, are you? You don't suppose me wanting you to explain some of the points you made was that you never did?

But you are right. This time you suggested using an existing group:

I would hugely love to keep in contact, but Skype would kill me. I cant even manage MSN. Forums seem to suit my social anxiety :laugh:
Zomg still exists. If you just wanted a little forum to hang out with your mates on, it could be used.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 15, 2012, 03:20:35 PM
It's one of these issues where he has "decided" that he is right.

I'm not allowed to argue my points, Lit?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 15, 2012, 03:21:49 PM
When this thread hits 30 pages, everyone wins a puppy!

Well, we know MissKitty will chose a Leonberger, CBC will choose a Sheltie, Parts will choose a large breed dog...........
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 15, 2012, 03:23:26 PM
It's one of these issues where he has "decided" that he is right.

I'm not allowed to argue my points, Lit?

It's your board, so of course you can argue as much as you want. Though this is one of those questions that you simply don't accept in your comfort zone.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 15, 2012, 03:37:06 PM
I think it is best not to try.  There will be drama on here again, i feel sure.

Probably just a quiet spell.  I can always make some more posts about mirror sex and submissive sex?  Or about my insatiable desire for a damn good rodgering?    >:D
When and where did you talk about mirror sex?  That sounds like it could be one of a couple of things.

Reflective Katoptronaphiliac  -  it's in the name.

Can't recall where and when i have spoken about this.  I have, though.  Several times.  Tend to STFU when no one responds.  If i had any inclination that this was a shared fantasy by anyone here i would be happy to open dialogue again.

You've talked enough about it for me to think of you, when I see the mirror over my bed.  :laugh:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 15, 2012, 03:39:16 PM
If you take the time to address Bodie's points, don't misrepresent them. Here's what I think is important in her post:

I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this? :dunno:

Notice how she actually dismisses the subforum for younger members as something I'd likely not do? Seems to me she doesn't believe in it either.

And while she starts by saying "It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read...", she then goes on with what's important, which isn't about interpreting what you think or do not think but wholly sensible advice, regardless:

"Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required."

and, more importantly:

"In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   "

Sounds to me like sensible advice. But hey, that's just me. And maybe a few other members who think that this place is not dying and worth using.

But it's better to paint yourself as a victim, isn't it?



Bodie made some very simple and constructive suggestions about how to change the site, like trying to fill it with stuff you like, ignoring people and posts you don't care about, things like that. That's what you disagreed with,

No, thats quite clearly not the case. I would have preferred not to pick through Bods post for your benefit, but I have little choice. Sorry Bod.

Quote
Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.
I just dont think that would be a good idea.


Quote
It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty
She is trying to explain what she thinks I was trying to say. This was not what I was trying to say.


Quote
The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this?
I explained to her what was stopping me from posting.

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 15, 2012, 03:40:20 PM
It's one of these issues where he has "decided" that he is right.

I'm not allowed to argue my points, Lit?

It's your board, so of course you can argue as much as you want. Though this is one of those questions that you simply don't accept in your comfort zone.

???
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 15, 2012, 03:43:34 PM
When this thread hits 30 pages, everyone wins a puppy!

Well, we know MissKitty will chose a Leonberger, CBC will choose a Sheltie, Parts will choose a large breed dog...........

As much as I'd like a puppy, I'm allergic. Can I have a beer instead?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 15, 2012, 03:47:18 PM
When this thread hits 30 pages, everyone wins a puppy!

Well, we know MissKitty will chose a Leonberger, CBC will choose a Sheltie, Parts will choose a large breed dog...........

I don't want a puppy.  :GA:

I like well treated and well educated larger breeds of dogs, but to be responsible for raising and socialising it, hell no.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 03:51:56 PM


You can disagree with anyone you like, Butterflies, friends and foes alike, but if you don't present viable alternatives, then don't you think whining about this site while suggesting yet another group for the young and the vibrant is just a tad arrogant?

Youre the one that is showing true arrogance here Odeon.
You hound my posts, demanding that I clarify every point I try to make. If I make any mistake, you will jump on me.
I have not suggested yet another new group for young vibrant aspies. Schleed has started a FB group, and he invited me to join. AFAIK, everyone here who is on FB has been invited to join.
Now, clearly you are wrong here, so it just remains to be seen whether you have the humility to admit your mistake and offer an apology like I did with Les, or whether you continue true to form and arrogantly try to claim that you are somehow right.

:LMAO:

Hounded, are you? You don't suppose me wanting you to explain some of the points you made was that you never did?

But you are right. This time you suggested using an existing group:

I would hugely love to keep in contact, but Skype would kill me. I cant even manage MSN. Forums seem to suit my social anxiety :laugh:
Zomg still exists. If you just wanted a little forum to hang out with your mates on, it could be used.

Zomg is completely dead. I havent even logged on in months. Your point makes no sense.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 04:12:07 PM
If you take the time to address Bodie's points, don't misrepresent them. Here's what I think is important in her post:

I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this? :dunno:

Notice how she actually dismisses the subforum for younger members as something I'd likely not do? Seems to me she doesn't believe in it either.

And while she starts by saying "It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read...", she then goes on with what's important, which isn't about interpreting what you think or do not think but wholly sensible advice, regardless:

"Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required."

and, more importantly:

"In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   "

Sounds to me like sensible advice. But hey, that's just me. And maybe a few other members who think that this place is not dying and worth using.

But it's better to paint yourself as a victim, isn't it?



Bodie made some very simple and constructive suggestions about how to change the site, like trying to fill it with stuff you like, ignoring people and posts you don't care about, things like that. That's what you disagreed with,

No, thats quite clearly not the case. I would have preferred not to pick through Bods post for your benefit, but I have little choice. Sorry Bod.

Quote
Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.
I just dont think that would be a good idea.


Quote
It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty
She is trying to explain what she thinks I was trying to say. This was not what I was trying to say.


Quote
The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this?
I explained to her what was stopping me from posting.

 ??? ??? ???


Why would I want to misrepresent Bods posts? I like Bod a lot. She is easily one of my favorite people here.

You are making absolutely no sense here Odeon. Your comments are appearing further and further from reality by the page.

Obviously I dont disagree with "Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required." Or, "In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way."

I disagreed with the points by Bod that I quoted from her. I had no reason to quote what I didnt disagree with.
Just because you felt they were the important points in her post, doesnt mean I have to.


It has got to the stage where you just appear to be arguing with me over random nothingness.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 15, 2012, 05:25:54 PM
They have each thrown at least one absurd slice of paranoia at me
I am actually wondering about the paranoia angle you are trying for. I am not paranoid of you. I do not think you really have that much influence on the site (perhaps you may have had a bit more back in the day). It seems you have been trying to say that either i am paranoid because i apparently believe you will take heaps of members away. I have clearly refuted this

How on Earth can I possibly remove 4-5 active members here. I'm not totally sure I even have 4-5 friends who still post regularly here, let alone 4-5 people who could be so influenced by me as to leave the site because Im not being entertained.

This almost tops Odeons assertion that I am actively trying to start a fight with you.
@Les. You do realize that the site is averaging around 15 members online a day this month? Do you seriously think that I could possibly believe that almost one third of the site would leave if I told them to?

Now to answer your question...No. It would be absurd to think after you more blatantly trawled for members here and to encourage members awat from here to Spasticity and were a failure, that I would exp[ect your actions would produce better results.
You were not trying to indicate that anyone might believe that were you Butterflies? That would be absurd.

Or perhaps you are saying I am paranoid because i mentioned you have fucked over people (and so people remain cautious with you) and your intentions are questionable. No great surprise. Hell even you took pains in the past to tell everyone you have no conscious boundaries or some bullshit excuse for your behaviours.



And, the bullshit starts again. I didnt fuck anyone over. I know you like to present your opinions as fact, but thats just pathetic.

Sure Butterflies. That whole Elders thing at Odeon about his personal relationships was fair game wasn't it? Or is it Les just "bullshitting"?


For example, the drama that happened a year ago was not good at all. I did not enjoy it, it was also very bad for the site.
However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done

Yes let's not examine morality in fact let's forget. The drama had nothing to do with you and the site benefited immensely for your efforts. Better not questioned. Bothersome boundaries.


Yes. Bullshit is so much truer when its presented in the form of a rambling essay.

I wonder who the gullible fools will be who believe you this time.

Bullshit again? Rambling essay? Or was it me deliberately polarising and simplifying what I saw as Bodie and your perspectives to mock you? I do not doubt that you dislike my humour but to call it everything I say Bullshit is pretty weak. Unless you stop calling it bullshit and people who think that it may echo their perspectives giullible.
I could call everything i hear lies or anything I do not like being said or read, lies too. I am just not that silly.
 

Papiliones:  :viking:

Sir Les:  :thumbdn:
Oh sorry Lit. Let me translate what I was saying into a more palatable essay.
"Yeah Government sucks. So do the cowardly police. The police, the rich and the politicians of the world should all be shot...no...blown up with home-made explosives, by the citizens of the world, who for a victory celebration should all have an orgy with heaps of ATM. Derp :tard:
 

When this thread hits 30 pages, everyone wins a puppy!
You know I will get there. :)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 05:47:19 PM
They have each thrown at least one absurd slice of paranoia at me
I am actually wondering about the paranoia angle you are trying for. I am not paranoid of you. I do not think you really have that much influence on the site (perhaps you may have had a bit more back in the day). It seems you have been trying to say that either i am paranoid because i apparently believe you will take heaps of members away. I have clearly refuted this

How on Earth can I possibly remove 4-5 active members here. I'm not totally sure I even have 4-5 friends who still post regularly here, let alone 4-5 people who could be so influenced by me as to leave the site because Im not being entertained.

This almost tops Odeons assertion that I am actively trying to start a fight with you.
@Les. You do realize that the site is averaging around 15 members online a day this month? Do you seriously think that I could possibly believe that almost one third of the site would leave if I told them to?

Now to answer your question...No. It would be absurd to think after you more blatantly trawled for members here and to encourage members awat from here to Spasticity and were a failure, that I would exp[ect your actions would produce better results.
You were not trying to indicate that anyone might believe that were you Butterflies? That would be absurd.

Or perhaps you are saying I am paranoid because i mentioned you have fucked over people (and so people remain cautious with you) and your intentions are questionable. No great surprise. Hell even you took pains in the past to tell everyone you have no conscious boundaries or some bullshit excuse for your behaviours.



And, the bullshit starts again. I didnt fuck anyone over. I know you like to present your opinions as fact, but thats just pathetic.

Sure Butterflies. That whole Elders thing at Odeon about his personal relationships was fair game wasn't it? Or is it Les just "bullshitting"?


For example, the drama that happened a year ago was not good at all. I did not enjoy it, it was also very bad for the site.
However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done

Yes let's not examine morality in fact let's forget. The drama had nothing to do with you and the site benefited immensely for your efforts. Better not questioned. Bothersome boundaries.


Yes. Bullshit is so much truer when its presented in the form of a rambling essay.

I wonder who the gullible fools will be who believe you this time.

Bullshit again? Rambling essay? Or was it me deliberately polarising and simplifying what I saw as Bodie and your perspectives to mock you? I do not doubt that you dislike my humour but to call it everything I say Bullshit is pretty weak. Unless you stop calling it bullshit and people who think that it may echo their perspectives giullible.
I could call everything i hear lies or anything I do not like being said or read, lies too. I am just not that silly.
 

Papiliones:  :viking:

Sir Les:  :thumbdn:
Oh sorry Lit. Let me translate what I was saying into a more palatable essay.
"Yeah Government sucks. So do the cowardly police. The police, the rich and the politicians of the world should all be shot...no...blown up with home-made explosives, by the citizens of the world, who for a victory celebration should all have an orgy with heaps of ATM. Derp :tard:
 

When this thread hits 30 pages, everyone wins a puppy!
You know I will get there. :)

That is a horrific pile of absolute bullshit Les.

Quote
I am actually wondering about the paranoia angle you are trying for. I am not paranoid of you. I do not think you really have that much influence on the site (perhaps you may have had a bit more back in the day).
I never suggested you were scared of me. I am saying that you and Odeon are coming up with paranoid theories about me.


Quote
It seems you have been trying to say that either i am paranoid because i apparently believe you will take heaps of members away. I have clearly refuted this
You said clearly that I threatened to take 4-5 members away. I successfully refuted any possibility that I could get 4-5 members to leave.




Quote from: Les

Quote from: Butterflies
For example, the drama that happened a year ago was not good at all. I did not enjoy it, it was also very bad for the site.
However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done

Yes let's not examine morality in fact let's forget. The drama had nothing to do with you and the site benefited immensely for your efforts. Better not questioned. Bothersome boundaries.

That is a thoroughly shameless bit of quote altering. You should be ashamed of yourself, especially after Odeon making such a big thing of wrongly claiming I misrepresented Bods post.

 As you can see, "However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done" is the first half of a different paragragh, which you have tacked onto the end of the previous sentence. It was about the Parakeet incident. Here is the full quote:

For example, the drama that happened a year ago was not good at all. I did not enjoy it, it was also very bad for the site.
However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done, the drama with Parakeet was among the funniest "drama" I was involved in. I think it was good drama, or at least, fun drama. I think it livened up the site for a while.

Long bitter feuds may be "drama," but they help nobody. Fun "drama" is IMO good for the site.
This site needs fun "drama" IMO.

Shameful Les, shameful :facepalm2: :facepalm2:


And just remember Les. You are the only person bringing your friends "personal relationships" into things here. Im sure its worth it for you though :thumbup:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 15, 2012, 05:54:46 PM
EVERYONE!

Back to bed, get a good night's sleep and get out of bed on the right side tomorrow.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 15, 2012, 06:27:36 PM
When this thread hits 30 pages, everyone wins a puppy!

Well, we know MissKitty will chose a Leonberger, CBC will choose a Sheltie, Parts will choose a large breed dog...........
.... and I will have another cat please
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: El on November 15, 2012, 07:33:06 PM
If you take the time to address Bodie's points, don't misrepresent them. Here's what I think is important in her post:

I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this? :dunno:

Notice how she actually dismisses the subforum for younger members as something I'd likely not do? Seems to me she doesn't believe in it either.

And while she starts by saying "It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read...", she then goes on with what's important, which isn't about interpreting what you think or do not think but wholly sensible advice, regardless:

"Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required."

and, more importantly:

"In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   "

Sounds to me like sensible advice. But hey, that's just me. And maybe a few other members who think that this place is not dying and worth using.

But it's better to paint yourself as a victim, isn't it?
Seems to me that she may well be following bod's advice anyway, in this very thread.   :apondering:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 15, 2012, 07:37:51 PM
Pyraxis, whoever said they could not?
I'm asking the sky. You know, throwing a question out there to see if it picks up any interesting responses. If nobody said that, then all that'll happen is I won't get any answers. No big loss.

When Butterflies thinks on the time when she first started she is expressing her views of the time as being a good time on here .There were a lot of the same faces and a few more tht have since left. Was there a want from butterflies to go off and make a new group then? Was there a want from any of the other members for Butterflies to go off? Was there such a big problem in her mind of the older members here being....well....not young?
I think you know the answers, and suggesting that there is a reluctance or inability for people to accept others here is silly isn't it?
Is it? You just set up a great big honkin' straw man, you want me to push it over for you?
*poke*

The problem is if you are well placed and well liked and so on, and then you fuck over people, those people tend to not hold you in the same esteem as you did before you fucked them over. THAT is sensible. Others would likely treat you with caution as they think that you have lost credibility and trust, and they too do not want to expose themselves to you just to let you fuck them over
So let's not pretend that this is about people not able to accept others because they are different.
Not at all what you are trying is it Py?
There's nothing I disagree with there. If you're well liked and you fuck people over, I will be side by side in calling you on it. (Which I was, at one point in 2010, yeh?) So hell, I've got nothing against calling out hypocrisy, or treating untrustworthy people with caution.
But it seems a lot of the point here is that it's swung too far in the other direction. Instead of too much drama, too little activity altogether. Hence reconsidering if the old pattern is still valid.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 07:38:48 PM
If you take the time to address Bodie's points, don't misrepresent them. Here's what I think is important in her post:

I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this? :dunno:

Notice how she actually dismisses the subforum for younger members as something I'd likely not do? Seems to me she doesn't believe in it either.

And while she starts by saying "It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read...", she then goes on with what's important, which isn't about interpreting what you think or do not think but wholly sensible advice, regardless:

"Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required."

and, more importantly:

"In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   "

Sounds to me like sensible advice. But hey, that's just me. And maybe a few other members who think that this place is not dying and worth using.

But it's better to paint yourself as a victim, isn't it?
Seems to me that she may well be following bod's advice anyway, in this very thread.   :apondering:

I have to pluss you for that :lol1:
 :plus: :plus: :plus:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 15, 2012, 08:47:28 PM
Pyraxis, whoever said they could not?
I'm asking the sky. You know, throwing a question out there to see if it picks up any interesting responses. If nobody said that, then all that'll happen is I won't get any answers. No big loss.

When Butterflies thinks on the time when she first started she is expressing her views of the time as being a good time on here .There were a lot of the same faces and a few more tht have since left. Was there a want from butterflies to go off and make a new group then? Was there a want from any of the other members for Butterflies to go off? Was there such a big problem in her mind of the older members here being....well....not young?
I think you know the answers, and suggesting that there is a reluctance or inability for people to accept others here is silly isn't it?
Is it? You just set up a great big honkin' straw man, you want me to push it over for you?
*poke*

The problem is if you are well placed and well liked and so on, and then you fuck over people, those people tend to not hold you in the same esteem as you did before you fucked them over. THAT is sensible. Others would likely treat you with caution as they think that you have lost credibility and trust, and they too do not want to expose themselves to you just to let you fuck them over
So let's not pretend that this is about people not able to accept others because they are different.
Not at all what you are trying is it Py?
There's nothing I disagree with there. If you're well liked and you fuck people over, I will be side by side in calling you on it. (Which I was, at one point in 2010, yeh?) So hell, I've got nothing against calling out hypocrisy, or treating untrustworthy people with caution.
But it seems a lot of the point here is that it's swung too far in the other direction. Instead of too much drama, too little activity altogether. Hence reconsidering if the old pattern is still valid.

Yes I would like you to show why what I said was a strawman and then try to push it over.

But yes I definitely think that there may (and I say may) be some merit in things going the "other way". Consider though how things have been in the worst dramacausts.

If you're well liked and you fuck people over, I will be side by side in calling you on it.
Absolutely.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: ProfessorFarnsworth on November 15, 2012, 09:09:51 PM
If it's any consideration, I've noticed that activity somewhat correlates with off-site dramas (especially with WP). Lately no such dramas are emerging and things have gone rather quiet.

All the community needs is a new source of external stimuli to provoke frenzy posting and attract new members.

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 15, 2012, 09:11:34 PM
That is a horrific pile of absolute bullshit Les.

Really? So this was not just then ordinary bullshit that you have been accusing it of being, but horrific? You think that is a little too much? Are you or anyone horrified by what I said....really? Melodrama?

Quote
I am actually wondering about the paranoia angle you are trying for. I am not paranoid of you. I do not think you really have that much influence on the site (perhaps you may have had a bit more back in the day).
I never suggested you were scared of me. I am saying that you and Odeon are coming up with paranoid theories about me.

Yet what you quoted below is a difference of perspection between what you said and how I interpreted what you said. Nothing paranoid in that and ineffect you make no real point

Quote
It seems you have been trying to say that either i am paranoid because i apparently believe you will take heaps of members away. I have clearly refuted this
You said clearly that I threatened to take 4-5 members away. I successfully refuted any possibility that I could get 4-5 members to leave.

...and we were never in dispute as i do not believe you could take 4-5 members away from here either. I suffer no paranoia in believing that you couldn't.
Now if what you are trying to say is that I believed by you writing about another 4-5 members apart from you, leaving, that you were trying to using this occassion and this thread as a means to put shit on I2 so people would hopefully leave, absolutely.
Do or did I think that you would or could be successful in your efforts? No.
Again can not see the paranoia.
If you are saying you talk of you and others leaving was not about either actively or passively trying to induce people to leave then I read it differently.

Quote from: Les
Quote from: Butterflies
For example, the drama that happened a year ago was not good at all. I did not enjoy it, it was also very bad for the site.
However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done

Yes let's not examine morality in fact let's forget. The drama had nothing to do with you and the site benefited immensely for your efforts. Better not questioned. Bothersome boundaries.

That is a thoroughly shameless bit of quote altering. You should be ashamed of yourself, especially after Odeon making such a big thing of wrongly claiming I misrepresented Bods post.

Quote-altering? Nope. Quoting out of context? Nope. Why? You DO go on to justify that you think your efforts with Parrakeet (despite my disclaimer quoted) was funny. It does not affect the crux of what I was saying in the least.
I should be ashamed? No Butterflies. You ought to cut with the melodrama. I don't think anyone is buying it.

As you can see, "However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done" is the first half of a different paragragh, which you have tacked onto the end of the previous sentence. It was about the Parakeet incident. Here is the full quote:

For example, the drama that happened a year ago was not good at all. I did not enjoy it, it was also very bad for the site.
However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done, the drama with Parakeet was among the funniest "drama" I was involved in. I think it was good drama, or at least, fun drama. I think it livened up the site for a while.

Long bitter feuds may be "drama," but they help nobody. Fun "drama" is IMO good for the site.
This site needs fun "drama" IMO.

Shameful Les, shameful :facepalm2: :facepalm2:

Stating it emphatically does not lend a bad position credibility Butterflies.


And just remember Les. You are the only person bringing your friends "personal relationships" into things here. Im sure its worth it for you though :thumbup:

Yes because you refuted having ever fucked around peopel here and now when I make my point you rely on this tactic much like you did with Pandora, when placed in poor light you tried to say that me backing myself was poor form. Thionk of your friend. In fact you are a poor friend for back yourself against me.

Pretty piss poor
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 09:21:15 PM
That is a horrific pile of absolute bullshit Les.

Really? So this was not just then ordinary bullshit that you have been accusing it of being, but horrific? You think that is a little too much? Are you or anyone horrified by what I said....really? Melodrama?

Quote
I am actually wondering about the paranoia angle you are trying for. I am not paranoid of you. I do not think you really have that much influence on the site (perhaps you may have had a bit more back in the day).
I never suggested you were scared of me. I am saying that you and Odeon are coming up with paranoid theories about me.

Yet what you quoted below is a difference of perspection between what you said and how I interpreted what you said. Nothing paranoid in that and ineffect you make no real point

Quote
It seems you have been trying to say that either i am paranoid because i apparently believe you will take heaps of members away. I have clearly refuted this
You said clearly that I threatened to take 4-5 members away. I successfully refuted any possibility that I could get 4-5 members to leave.

...and we were never in dispute as i do not believe you could take 4-5 members away from here either. I suffer no paranoia in believing that you couldn't.
Now if what you are trying to say is that I believed by you writing about another 4-5 members apart from you, leaving, that you were trying to using this occassion and this thread as a means to put shit on I2 so people would hopefully leave, absolutely.
Do or did I think that you would or could be successful in your efforts? No.
Again can not see the paranoia.
If you are saying you talk of you and others leaving was not about either actively or passively trying to induce people to leave then I read it differently.

Quote from: Les
Quote from: Butterflies
For example, the drama that happened a year ago was not good at all. I did not enjoy it, it was also very bad for the site.
However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done

Yes let's not examine morality in fact let's forget. The drama had nothing to do with you and the site benefited immensely for your efforts. Better not questioned. Bothersome boundaries.

That is a thoroughly shameless bit of quote altering. You should be ashamed of yourself, especially after Odeon making such a big thing of wrongly claiming I misrepresented Bods post.

Quote-altering? Nope. Quoting out of context? Nope. Why? You DO go on to justify that you think your efforts with Parrakeet (despite my disclaimer quoted) was funny. It does not affect the crux of what I was saying in the least.
I should be ashamed? No Butterflies. You ought to cut with the melodrama. I don't think anyone is buying it.

As you can see, "However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done" is the first half of a different paragragh, which you have tacked onto the end of the previous sentence. It was about the Parakeet incident. Here is the full quote:

For example, the drama that happened a year ago was not good at all. I did not enjoy it, it was also very bad for the site.
However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done, the drama with Parakeet was among the funniest "drama" I was involved in. I think it was good drama, or at least, fun drama. I think it livened up the site for a while.

Long bitter feuds may be "drama," but they help nobody. Fun "drama" is IMO good for the site.
This site needs fun "drama" IMO.

Shameful Les, shameful :facepalm2: :facepalm2:

Stating it emphatically does not lend a bad position credibility Butterflies.


And just remember Les. You are the only person bringing your friends "personal relationships" into things here. Im sure its worth it for you though :thumbup:

Yes because you refuted having ever fucked around peopel here and now when I make my point you rely on this tactic much like you did with Pandora, when placed in poor light you tried to say that me backing myself was poor form. Thionk of your friend. In fact you are a poor friend for back yourself against me.

Pretty piss poor

OMG. Now youre bringing Pandora into this. I can hear the sound of a thousand tiny violins


:fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp:

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 15, 2012, 09:38:59 PM
  If Squid, Scrap, Eris, and all the other missing members/ex-members could be
  rounded up and brought back, maybe things would be as they were before.  Maybe.  Or the
  missing members might have changed so much in the meantime that their return would be
  disappointing.  I have to guess that they have already changed since their posting heyday,
  and that that is one reason they're not here anymore.    :dunno:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 09:49:17 PM
  If Squid, Scrap, Eris, and all the other missing members/ex-members could be
  rounded up and brought back, maybe things would be as they were before.  Maybe.  Or the
  missing members might have changed so much in the meantime that their return would be
  disappointing.  I have to guess that they have already changed since their posting heyday,
  and that that is one reason they're not here anymore.    :dunno:


TBH, I dont think its so much that the members have changed, so much as its their relationships with one another have changed.

If we were to get all of that group together again, there would likely be open warfare  :litigious: :tooledup: :flamer: :vader:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 15, 2012, 09:50:19 PM
  If Squid, Scrap, Eris, and all the other missing members/ex-members could be
  rounded up and brought back, maybe things would be as they were before.  Maybe.  Or the
  missing members might have changed so much in the meantime that their return would be
  disappointing.  I have to guess that they have already changed since their posting heyday,
  and that that is one reason they're not here anymore.    :dunno:


TBH, I dont think its so much that the members have changed, so much as its their relationships with one another have changed.

If we were to get all of that group together again, there would likely be open warfare  :litigious: :tooledup: :flamer: :vader:

  Factor in the newer members and it could be Armageddon!  :zombiefuck:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 09:55:36 PM
  If Squid, Scrap, Eris, and all the other missing members/ex-members could be
  rounded up and brought back, maybe things would be as they were before.  Maybe.  Or the
  missing members might have changed so much in the meantime that their return would be
  disappointing.  I have to guess that they have already changed since their posting heyday,
  and that that is one reason they're not here anymore.    :dunno:


TBH, I dont think its so much that the members have changed, so much as its their relationships with one another have changed.

If we were to get all of that group together again, there would likely be open warfare  :litigious: :tooledup: :flamer: :vader:

  Factor in the newer members and it could be Armageddon!  :zombiefuck:

I propose a re-recruitment drive >:D
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 15, 2012, 10:03:37 PM
  If Squid, Scrap, Eris, and all the other missing members/ex-members could be
  rounded up and brought back, maybe things would be as they were before.  Maybe.  Or the
  missing members might have changed so much in the meantime that their return would be
  disappointing.  I have to guess that they have already changed since their posting heyday,
  and that that is one reason they're not here anymore.    :dunno:


TBH, I dont think its so much that the members have changed, so much as its their relationships with one another have changed.

If we were to get all of that group together again, there would likely be open warfare  :litigious: :tooledup: :flamer: :vader:

  Factor in the newer members and it could be Armageddon!  :zombiefuck:

I propose a re-recruitment drive >:D

  You could call it  "Operation Pandora's Box."   :CanofWorms:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 15, 2012, 10:08:27 PM
  If Squid, Scrap, Eris, and all the other missing members/ex-members could be
  rounded up and brought back, maybe things would be as they were before.  Maybe.  Or the
  missing members might have changed so much in the meantime that their return would be
  disappointing.  I have to guess that they have already changed since their posting heyday,
  and that that is one reason they're not here anymore.    :dunno:


TBH, I dont think its so much that the members have changed, so much as its their relationships with one another have changed.

If we were to get all of that group together again, there would likely be open warfare  :litigious: :tooledup: :flamer: :vader:

  Factor in the newer members and it could be Armageddon!  :zombiefuck:

I propose a re-recruitment drive >:D

  You could call it  "Operation Pandora's Box."   :CanofWorms:

 :lol1: :lol1: :lol1:

 :plus: :plus: :plus:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 15, 2012, 11:14:03 PM
That is a horrific pile of absolute bullshit Les.

Really? So this was not just then ordinary bullshit that you have been accusing it of being, but horrific? You think that is a little too much? Are you or anyone horrified by what I said....really? Melodrama?

Quote
I am actually wondering about the paranoia angle you are trying for. I am not paranoid of you. I do not think you really have that much influence on the site (perhaps you may have had a bit more back in the day).
I never suggested you were scared of me. I am saying that you and Odeon are coming up with paranoid theories about me.

Yet what you quoted below is a difference of perspection between what you said and how I interpreted what you said. Nothing paranoid in that and ineffect you make no real point

Quote
It seems you have been trying to say that either i am paranoid because i apparently believe you will take heaps of members away. I have clearly refuted this
You said clearly that I threatened to take 4-5 members away. I successfully refuted any possibility that I could get 4-5 members to leave.

...and we were never in dispute as i do not believe you could take 4-5 members away from here either. I suffer no paranoia in believing that you couldn't.
Now if what you are trying to say is that I believed by you writing about another 4-5 members apart from you, leaving, that you were trying to using this occassion and this thread as a means to put shit on I2 so people would hopefully leave, absolutely.
Do or did I think that you would or could be successful in your efforts? No.
Again can not see the paranoia.
If you are saying you talk of you and others leaving was not about either actively or passively trying to induce people to leave then I read it differently.

Quote from: Les
Quote from: Butterflies
For example, the drama that happened a year ago was not good at all. I did not enjoy it, it was also very bad for the site.
However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done

Yes let's not examine morality in fact let's forget. The drama had nothing to do with you and the site benefited immensely for your efforts. Better not questioned. Bothersome boundaries.

That is a thoroughly shameless bit of quote altering. You should be ashamed of yourself, especially after Odeon making such a big thing of wrongly claiming I misrepresented Bods post.

Quote-altering? Nope. Quoting out of context? Nope. Why? You DO go on to justify that you think your efforts with Parrakeet (despite my disclaimer quoted) was funny. It does not affect the crux of what I was saying in the least.
I should be ashamed? No Butterflies. You ought to cut with the melodrama. I don't think anyone is buying it.

As you can see, "However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done" is the first half of a different paragragh, which you have tacked onto the end of the previous sentence. It was about the Parakeet incident. Here is the full quote:

For example, the drama that happened a year ago was not good at all. I did not enjoy it, it was also very bad for the site.
However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done, the drama with Parakeet was among the funniest "drama" I was involved in. I think it was good drama, or at least, fun drama. I think it livened up the site for a while.

Long bitter feuds may be "drama," but they help nobody. Fun "drama" is IMO good for the site.
This site needs fun "drama" IMO.

Shameful Les, shameful :facepalm2: :facepalm2:

Stating it emphatically does not lend a bad position credibility Butterflies.


And just remember Les. You are the only person bringing your friends "personal relationships" into things here. Im sure its worth it for you though :thumbup:

Yes because you refuted having ever fucked around peopel here and now when I make my point you rely on this tactic much like you did with Pandora, when placed in poor light you tried to say that me backing myself was poor form. Thionk of your friend. In fact you are a poor friend for back yourself against me.

Pretty piss poor

OMG. Now youre bringing Pandora into this. I can hear the sound of a thousand tiny violins


:fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp:

Violins? What melodramatic flight of fancy are you on now?
Yes this example of trying to say that I ought not have referenced Odeon in backing myself, has exactly the same hallmarks as when you did a call out on me (playing Pandora's protector) from me against me referencing her. Remember that? You were suddenly her protector, defending her against me from mentioning her in respect to attacks you made on her. Much like you did with Odeon, and in both instances you try to deflect to me for having the temerity to bring it up.

Violins..no that is more beat up and melodrama. :tard:

What have we now? Slowly ticking off a checklist

Over the top melodrama
Deflections
Misrepresentations
Calling everything bullshit
Vague assertions

I think re-writes certainly are on the cards but I think straw man arguments and hypocritical judgments still waits. Maybe a few very gutterball low blows for good measure.

Page 30 yet?

I do not think Squid or Eris or Scrap or Binty is banned. Nothing stopping them joining in. I don't care either way if they are here or not
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 15, 2012, 11:27:22 PM
  I think my Pandora's Box reference ended up being funny in a way I didn't expect.  :-[
   Who is/was Pandora?  I wasn't following the posts that might have mentioned her before.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 16, 2012, 04:29:27 AM


You can disagree with anyone you like, Butterflies, friends and foes alike, but if you don't present viable alternatives, then don't you think whining about this site while suggesting yet another group for the young and the vibrant is just a tad arrogant?

Youre the one that is showing true arrogance here Odeon.
You hound my posts, demanding that I clarify every point I try to make. If I make any mistake, you will jump on me.
I have not suggested yet another new group for young vibrant aspies. Schleed has started a FB group, and he invited me to join. AFAIK, everyone here who is on FB has been invited to join.
Now, clearly you are wrong here, so it just remains to be seen whether you have the humility to admit your mistake and offer an apology like I did with Les, or whether you continue true to form and arrogantly try to claim that you are somehow right.

:LMAO:

Hounded, are you? You don't suppose me wanting you to explain some of the points you made was that you never did?

But you are right. This time you suggested using an existing group:

I would hugely love to keep in contact, but Skype would kill me. I cant even manage MSN. Forums seem to suit my social anxiety :laugh:
Zomg still exists. If you just wanted a little forum to hang out with your mates on, it could be used.

Zomg is completely dead. I havent even logged on in months. Your point makes no sense.

You aren't that stupid. Read again and see if you get it.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 16, 2012, 04:39:04 AM
If you take the time to address Bodie's points, don't misrepresent them. Here's what I think is important in her post:

I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this? :dunno:

Notice how she actually dismisses the subforum for younger members as something I'd likely not do? Seems to me she doesn't believe in it either.

And while she starts by saying "It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read...", she then goes on with what's important, which isn't about interpreting what you think or do not think but wholly sensible advice, regardless:

"Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required."

and, more importantly:

"In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   "

Sounds to me like sensible advice. But hey, that's just me. And maybe a few other members who think that this place is not dying and worth using.

But it's better to paint yourself as a victim, isn't it?



Bodie made some very simple and constructive suggestions about how to change the site, like trying to fill it with stuff you like, ignoring people and posts you don't care about, things like that. That's what you disagreed with,

No, thats quite clearly not the case. I would have preferred not to pick through Bods post for your benefit, but I have little choice. Sorry Bod.

Quote
Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.
I just dont think that would be a good idea.


Quote
It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty
She is trying to explain what she thinks I was trying to say. This was not what I was trying to say.


Quote
The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this?
I explained to her what was stopping me from posting.

 ??? ??? ???


Why would I want to misrepresent Bods posts? I like Bod a lot. She is easily one of my favorite people here.

I have no idea of why. You tell me. Are you simply bad at quoting? Be as it may, you managed to miss her points almost completely.

Quote
You are making absolutely no sense here Odeon. Your comments are appearing further and further from reality by the page.

Obviously I dont disagree with "Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required." Or, "In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way."

I disagreed with the points by Bod that I quoted from her. I had no reason to quote what I didnt disagree with.
Just because you felt they were the important points in her post, doesnt mean I have to.

This is obviously beyond you and I can't be bothered to explain, tbh.

I realise you want younger members to hang around with, but from the looks of it you'd need kids from the local kindergarten to understand them.
 

Quote
It has got to the stage where you just appear to be arguing with me over random nothingness.

I realise now that most of this must be incomprehensible to you. Oh well.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 16, 2012, 04:49:43 AM
  I think my Pandora's Box reference ended up being funny in a way I didn't expect.  :-[
   Who is/was Pandora?  I wasn't following the posts that might have mentioned her before.


Remember TenaciousCJ and Pakrat on AFF? Yes that is Pandora from WP.

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html)

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html)

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 16, 2012, 07:03:27 AM
  I think my Pandora's Box reference ended up being funny in a way I didn't expect.  :-[
   Who is/was Pandora?  I wasn't following the posts that might have mentioned her before.


Remember TenaciousCJ and Pakrat on AFF? Yes that is Pandora from WP.

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html)

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html)

  Oh damn.  For the record, I wasn't referring to her, I liked her on AFF.  :-\
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 16, 2012, 07:18:10 AM
  I think my Pandora's Box reference ended up being funny in a way I didn't expect.  :-[
   Who is/was Pandora?  I wasn't following the posts that might have mentioned her before.


Remember TenaciousCJ and Pakrat on AFF? Yes that is Pandora from WP.

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html)

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html)

  Oh damn.  For the record, I wasn't referring to her, I liked her on AFF.  :-\

Me too. She is a sweetheart. There were a few lovely ladies that came out of AFF. She is one, you are another and so is that lovely Hyke
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 16, 2012, 07:23:29 AM
  I think my Pandora's Box reference ended up being funny in a way I didn't expect.  :-[
   Who is/was Pandora?  I wasn't following the posts that might have mentioned her before.


Remember TenaciousCJ and Pakrat on AFF? Yes that is Pandora from WP.

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html)

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html)

  Oh damn.  For the record, I wasn't referring to her, I liked her on AFF.  :-\

Me too. She is a sweetheart. There were a few lovely ladies that came out of AFF. She is one, you are another and so is that lovely Hyke

  Hyke is a wise and funny bovine who brightens my day!   :hyke:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 16, 2012, 07:51:26 AM
Next week on i2: The lengthy debate continues, this time evolving to nanosemantics.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 16, 2012, 07:58:32 AM
Next week on i2: The lengthy debate continues, this time evolving to nanosemantics.

Maybe the board, during this time, will be graced by Shleed making references and inferences to to I2, that he doesn't care and that everyone else does.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 16, 2012, 08:16:56 AM
Herp derp

Fixed
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 16, 2012, 08:18:06 AM

  You could call it  "Operation Pandora's Box."   :CanofWorms:

 :LMAO:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 16, 2012, 08:28:06 AM
Quote
Was there a want from butterflies to go off and make a new group then? Was there a want from any of the other members for Butterflies to go off? Was there such a big problem in her mind of the older members here being....well....not young?
I think you know the answers, and suggesting that there is a reluctance or inability for people to accept others here is silly isn't it?

Yes I would like you to show why what I said was a strawman and then try to push it over.

Right there. See I don't even know if you want me to say yes or no to any of those questions. So if you're trying to set a trap where I nod along to everything, it went straight over my head.

Yes I remember Shleed starting his own site and butterflies wanting people to go there. Yes I remember some people disliking her, and I'm sure she got told more than once to just fuck off to there, though I don't remember specific incidences. I have no idea what was in her mind and whether it related to people being young or old. I don't think it's silly to suggest people here might be reluctant or unable to accept others since rigidity is a common aspergers trait and pretty much just about every drama since WP's conception has demonstrated that just because we're on the spectrum doesn't make everyone magically get along or be above petty social crap.

But yes I definitely think that there may (and I say may) be some merit in things going the "other way". Consider though how things have been in the worst dramacausts.
I do remember.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 16, 2012, 08:58:18 AM
Next week on i2: The lengthy debate continues, this time evolving to nanosemantics.

 :agreed:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 16, 2012, 10:28:29 AM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BzTxyhhHESQ/TA_YBTKfzfI/AAAAAAAAABE/kuKvHrQbtZ8/s1600/Puppy_dogs.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BzTxyhhHESQ/TA_YBTKfzfI/AAAAAAAAABE/kuKvHrQbtZ8/s1600/Puppy_dogs.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BzTxyhhHESQ/TA_YBTKfzfI/AAAAAAAAABE/kuKvHrQbtZ8/s1600/Puppy_dogs.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BzTxyhhHESQ/TA_YBTKfzfI/AAAAAAAAABE/kuKvHrQbtZ8/s1600/Puppy_dogs.jpg)(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BzTxyhhHESQ/TA_YBTKfzfI/AAAAAAAAABE/kuKvHrQbtZ8/s1600/Puppy_dogs.jpg)(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BzTxyhhHESQ/TA_YBTKfzfI/AAAAAAAAABE/kuKvHrQbtZ8/s1600/Puppy_dogs.jpg)(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BzTxyhhHESQ/TA_YBTKfzfI/AAAAAAAAABE/kuKvHrQbtZ8/s1600/Puppy_dogs.jpg)(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BzTxyhhHESQ/TA_YBTKfzfI/AAAAAAAAABE/kuKvHrQbtZ8/s1600/Puppy_dogs.jpg)(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BzTxyhhHESQ/TA_YBTKfzfI/AAAAAAAAABE/kuKvHrQbtZ8/s1600/Puppy_dogs.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BzTxyhhHESQ/TA_YBTKfzfI/AAAAAAAAABE/kuKvHrQbtZ8/s1600/Puppy_dogs.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BzTxyhhHESQ/TA_YBTKfzfI/AAAAAAAAABE/kuKvHrQbtZ8/s1600/Puppy_dogs.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BzTxyhhHESQ/TA_YBTKfzfI/AAAAAAAAABE/kuKvHrQbtZ8/s1600/Puppy_dogs.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BzTxyhhHESQ/TA_YBTKfzfI/AAAAAAAAABE/kuKvHrQbtZ8/s1600/Puppy_dogs.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BzTxyhhHESQ/TA_YBTKfzfI/AAAAAAAAABE/kuKvHrQbtZ8/s1600/Puppy_dogs.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 16, 2012, 11:25:26 AM
Next week on i2: The lengthy debate continues, this time evolving to nanosemantics.

Maybe the board, during this time, will be graced by Shleed making references and inferences to to I2, that he doesn't care and that everyone else does.

And Les will continue to make assumptions, essays and lengthy arguments that are in reality inefficient and meandering. He will also turn nanosemantics into picosemantics.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 16, 2012, 03:06:55 PM
Quote
Was there a want from butterflies to go off and make a new group then? Was there a want from any of the other members for Butterflies to go off? Was there such a big problem in her mind of the older members here being....well....not young?
I think you know the answers, and suggesting that there is a reluctance or inability for people to accept others here is silly isn't it?

Yes I would like you to show why what I said was a strawman and then try to push it over.

Right there. See I don't even know if you want me to say yes or no to any of those questions. So if you're trying to set a trap where I nod along to everything, it went straight over my head.

Yes I remember Shleed starting his own site and butterflies wanting people to go there. Yes I remember some people disliking her, and I'm sure she got told more than once to just fuck off to there, though I don't remember specific incidences. I have no idea what was in her mind and whether it related to people being young or old. I don't think it's silly to suggest people here might be reluctant or unable to accept others since rigidity is a common aspergers trait and pretty much just about every drama since WP's conception has demonstrated that just because we're on the spectrum doesn't make everyone magically get along or be above petty social crap.

But yes I definitely think that there may (and I say may) be some merit in things going the "other way". Consider though how things have been in the worst dramacausts.
I do remember.

Things do not happen in a vaccum, Py. When Butterflies talks of a time when this place was  better, she talks about it in Apr 2010. This was before those efforts I outlined and you agreed with. It was a time she was unknown or collectively held high esteem. She played a large part in the changes in how she is now perceived and how she is treated. It is not about youth or being young and that is not why she found the forum great before and not now.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 16, 2012, 03:16:42 PM
Next week on i2: The lengthy debate continues, this time evolving to nanosemantics.

Maybe the board, during this time, will be graced by Shleed making references and inferences to to I2, that he doesn't care and that everyone else does.

And Les will continue to make assumptions, essays and lengthy arguments that are in reality inefficient and meandering. He will also turn nanosemantics into picosemantics.
Yes, yes. And Lit will write something against the establishment. L will needle Ricky. Lestat will mention som chemical I have never heard of. Queen Vic will say something insightful.
Yes I like routine things too
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 16, 2012, 03:19:16 PM
If you take the time to address Bodie's points, don't misrepresent them. Here's what I think is important in her post:

I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this? :dunno:

Notice how she actually dismisses the subforum for younger members as something I'd likely not do? Seems to me she doesn't believe in it either.

And while she starts by saying "It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read...", she then goes on with what's important, which isn't about interpreting what you think or do not think but wholly sensible advice, regardless:

"Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required."

and, more importantly:

"In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   "

Sounds to me like sensible advice. But hey, that's just me. And maybe a few other members who think that this place is not dying and worth using.

But it's better to paint yourself as a victim, isn't it?



Bodie made some very simple and constructive suggestions about how to change the site, like trying to fill it with stuff you like, ignoring people and posts you don't care about, things like that. That's what you disagreed with,

No, thats quite clearly not the case. I would have preferred not to pick through Bods post for your benefit, but I have little choice. Sorry Bod.

Quote
Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.
I just dont think that would be a good idea.


Quote
It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty
She is trying to explain what she thinks I was trying to say. This was not what I was trying to say.


Quote
The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this?
I explained to her what was stopping me from posting.

 ??? ??? ???


Why would I want to misrepresent Bods posts? I like Bod a lot. She is easily one of my favorite people here.

I have no idea of why. You tell me. Are you simply bad at quoting? Be as it may, you managed to miss her points almost completely.

Quote
You are making absolutely no sense here Odeon. Your comments are appearing further and further from reality by the page.

Obviously I dont disagree with "Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required." Or, "In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way."

I disagreed with the points by Bod that I quoted from her. I had no reason to quote what I didnt disagree with.
Just because you felt they were the important points in her post, doesnt mean I have to.

This is obviously beyond you and I can't be bothered to explain, tbh.

I realise you want younger members to hang around with, but from the looks of it you'd need kids from the local kindergarten to understand them.
 

Quote
It has got to the stage where you just appear to be arguing with me over random nothingness.

I realise now that most of this must be incomprehensible to you. Oh well.

And who are you to decide what Bods points were?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 16, 2012, 03:22:55 PM
  I think my Pandora's Box reference ended up being funny in a way I didn't expect.  :-[
   Who is/was Pandora?  I wasn't following the posts that might have mentioned her before.


Remember TenaciousCJ and Pakrat on AFF? Yes that is Pandora from WP.

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html)

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html)

You are SO desperate to try and drag up the old argument with Pandora. :lol1: :lol1: :lol1:

I dont want to discuss your creepy old friends.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 16, 2012, 03:24:08 PM
And who are you to decide what Bods points were?

someone who knows how to read, it would seem.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 16, 2012, 03:27:29 PM
And who are you to decide what Bods points were?

someone who knows how to read, it would seem.

And now youre claiming that only you possess the ability to fully comprehend Bods post :facepalm2: :facepalm2:

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 16, 2012, 03:49:24 PM
  I think my Pandora's Box reference ended up being funny in a way I didn't expect.  :-[
   Who is/was Pandora?  I wasn't following the posts that might have mentioned her before.


Remember TenaciousCJ and Pakrat on AFF? Yes that is Pandora from WP.

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html)

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html)

You are SO desperate to try and drag up the old argument with Pandora. :lol1: :lol1: :lol1:

I dont want to discuss your creepy old friends.

I was not discussing it with you was i butterflies?

Now Honestly speaking, was I

a) Desperately trying to bring up Pandora?

OR

b) Was I reacting on a faux pas made by CBC about Pandora which left her confused and with no point of reference as to what was going on AND my quick introduction to who Pandora was on AFF (of which CBC was a mod and Pandora the most prolific poster there at the time) and links about here here, was providing CBC with the point of reference so she did not feel so confused?

If you say a) you are an idiot and no about of poor reading comprehension and emoticons will save you from looking like one.
If you say a) and b) then you are again an idiot because i did not create a situation that CBC made that faux pas that left her in need of such an explaination.
If you say b) ....well you will not say b. That is too honest.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 16, 2012, 03:49:57 PM
And who are you to decide what Bods points were?

someone who knows how to read, it would seem.

And now youre claiming that only you possess the ability to fully comprehend Bods post :facepalm2: :facepalm2:

No, I'm saying that most people have that ability. Most.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 16, 2012, 04:01:32 PM
And who are you to decide what Bods points were?

someone who knows how to read, it would seem.

And now youre claiming that only you possess the ability to fully comprehend Bods post :facepalm2: :facepalm2:

No, I'm saying that most people have that ability. Most.

Here is Bods post in full:

I think there is little that could be done, anyway.  Apart from creating actual parts of the site for younger members.  Maybe for under forty's or under thirties or whatever.  But why would Odeon want to do this?

It sounds to me like they want somewhere to post where they don't have to read or see posts from those they feel are old and farty.  Well, i would suggest that they just ignore the members they feel are old and farty anyway.  AFAIK there is no law that says a reply is required.

In fact i would suggest to anyone to use the site and fill it with stuff that you like.  I don't know what is preventing anyone from using the site this way.   

The atmosphere is dictated by the current posters.  The best way to change the atmosphere is by posting.  What or who is preventing this? :dunno:

As you can see in the part I have highlighted, Bod clearly says that she thinks the younger members want somewhere to post where they dont have to see or read posts from people who they consider to be old or farty.
I was saying to her that I would not want somewhere to post, where older people are expected to not post.

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 16, 2012, 04:10:19 PM
  I think my Pandora's Box reference ended up being funny in a way I didn't expect.  :-[
   Who is/was Pandora?  I wasn't following the posts that might have mentioned her before.


Remember TenaciousCJ and Pakrat on AFF? Yes that is Pandora from WP.

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18371.0.html)

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18379.0.html)

You are SO desperate to try and drag up the old argument with Pandora. :lol1: :lol1: :lol1:

I dont want to discuss your creepy old friends.

I was not discussing it with you was i butterflies?

Now Honestly speaking, was I

a) Desperately trying to bring up Pandora?

OR

b) Was I reacting on a faux pas made by CBC about Pandora which left her confused and with no point of reference as to what was going on AND my quick introduction to who Pandora was on AFF (of which CBC was a mod and Pandora the most prolific poster there at the time) and links about here here, was providing CBC with the point of reference so she did not feel so confused?

If you say a) you are an idiot and no about of poor reading comprehension and emoticons will save you from looking like one.
If you say a) and b) then you are again an idiot because i did not create a situation that CBC made that faux pas that left her in need of such an explaination.
If you say b) ....well you will not say b. That is too honest.

But Les, you brought Pandora up before CBC even mentioned her.

Here was your first post mentioning Pandora:
That is a horrific pile of absolute bullshit Les.

Really? So this was not just then ordinary bullshit that you have been accusing it of being, but horrific? You think that is a little too much? Are you or anyone horrified by what I said....really? Melodrama?

Quote
I am actually wondering about the paranoia angle you are trying for. I am not paranoid of you. I do not think you really have that much influence on the site (perhaps you may have had a bit more back in the day).
I never suggested you were scared of me. I am saying that you and Odeon are coming up with paranoid theories about me.

Yet what you quoted below is a difference of perspection between what you said and how I interpreted what you said. Nothing paranoid in that and ineffect you make no real point

Quote
It seems you have been trying to say that either i am paranoid because i apparently believe you will take heaps of members away. I have clearly refuted this
You said clearly that I threatened to take 4-5 members away. I successfully refuted any possibility that I could get 4-5 members to leave.

...and we were never in dispute as i do not believe you could take 4-5 members away from here either. I suffer no paranoia in believing that you couldn't.
Now if what you are trying to say is that I believed by you writing about another 4-5 members apart from you, leaving, that you were trying to using this occassion and this thread as a means to put shit on I2 so people would hopefully leave, absolutely.
Do or did I think that you would or could be successful in your efforts? No.
Again can not see the paranoia.
If you are saying you talk of you and others leaving was not about either actively or passively trying to induce people to leave then I read it differently.

Quote from: Les
Quote from: Butterflies
For example, the drama that happened a year ago was not good at all. I did not enjoy it, it was also very bad for the site.
However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done

Yes let's not examine morality in fact let's forget. The drama had nothing to do with you and the site benefited immensely for your efforts. Better not questioned. Bothersome boundaries.

That is a thoroughly shameless bit of quote altering. You should be ashamed of yourself, especially after Odeon making such a big thing of wrongly claiming I misrepresented Bods post.

Quote-altering? Nope. Quoting out of context? Nope. Why? You DO go on to justify that you think your efforts with Parrakeet (despite my disclaimer quoted) was funny. It does not affect the crux of what I was saying in the least.
I should be ashamed? No Butterflies. You ought to cut with the melodrama. I don't think anyone is buying it.

As you can see, "However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done" is the first half of a different paragragh, which you have tacked onto the end of the previous sentence. It was about the Parakeet incident. Here is the full quote:

For example, the drama that happened a year ago was not good at all. I did not enjoy it, it was also very bad for the site.
However, and forgetting about the morality of what was done, the drama with Parakeet was among the funniest "drama" I was involved in. I think it was good drama, or at least, fun drama. I think it livened up the site for a while.

Long bitter feuds may be "drama," but they help nobody. Fun "drama" is IMO good for the site.
This site needs fun "drama" IMO.

Shameful Les, shameful :facepalm2: :facepalm2:

Stating it emphatically does not lend a bad position credibility Butterflies.


And just remember Les. You are the only person bringing your friends "personal relationships" into things here. Im sure its worth it for you though :thumbup:

Yes because you refuted having ever fucked around peopel here and now when I make my point you rely on this tactic much like you did with Pandora, when placed in poor light you tried to say that me backing myself was poor form. Thionk of your friend. In fact you are a poor friend for back yourself against me.

Pretty piss poor


Now here is CBCs post, made almost an hour later.
As you can see, you brought up Pandora around 53 minutes before CBC mentioned her.
  If Squid, Scrap, Eris, and all the other missing members/ex-members could be
  rounded up and brought back, maybe things would be as they were before.  Maybe.  Or the
  missing members might have changed so much in the meantime that their return would be
  disappointing.  I have to guess that they have already changed since their posting heyday,
  and that that is one reason they're not here anymore.    :dunno:


TBH, I dont think its so much that the members have changed, so much as its their relationships with one another have changed.

If we were to get all of that group together again, there would likely be open warfare  :litigious: :tooledup: :flamer: :vader:

  Factor in the newer members and it could be Armageddon!  :zombiefuck:

I propose a re-recruitment drive >:D

  You could call it  "Operation Pandora's Box."   :CanofWorms:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 16, 2012, 04:13:38 PM
You can read. You just don't understand. That's worse, IMHO.

Oh well.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TA on November 16, 2012, 04:32:37 PM
This is still going on?  :yawn:

Butterflies, if you don't like it here, leave and start your own place for the younger crowd. That will get you a better result than complaining incessantly about the age demographics of I2.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 16, 2012, 04:36:21 PM
Papiliones mihi grati sunt  :heart:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 16, 2012, 04:45:15 PM
/shrugs
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 16, 2012, 04:51:14 PM
Yes Butterflies. I mentioned pandpora 53 minutes. Before. I used your mock concern/digust or whatever against me mentioning your efforts i bring up personal and private matters of odeon as to be simiar to your doing a callout against me for defending pandora (something like "you are doing her harm and are a bad friend for defending her and therefore highlighting what i said to her).

So YES I used her as an example to highlight a quirk in your argument style and then 53 minutes later or whatever CBC bought her up,

Once CBC bought her up, she stated she was confused as to what was going on and why you were amuseed at the reference to Pandora. (Some one that I HAD referenced 53 minutes before in case you believe I am trying to distance myself from this). I know that CBC knows Pandora from AFF. I knew what her names are over there. We are both from AFF and I was probably in the best position, ironically (given my lack of brevity), to succinctly get her up to speed. I did this, rather than leave her in the dark.

Now did I cause CBC to make the faux pas over Pandora? Did I quickly bring CBC up to speed? Did CBC know what was going on? Was she in need of some one to explain? As i knew how CBC would know Pandora, and where she could read at her leisure the association here that i referenced by links, was I well placed to let her know? Does any of these questions have anything to do whether I mentioned Pandora before?

OR

was I just desperate to mention Pandora?

Go for honesty and credible here Butterflies.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 16, 2012, 05:08:57 PM
  Just to clarify, I used the expression  "Pandora's Box"  in reference to the entertaining mess
  that could hypothetically ensue here if all the old members returned to mix it up with the
  current ones.  I didn't remember Pandora as a username and didn't mean to make fun of her.  :-\
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 16, 2012, 05:27:44 PM
From Sir Les -
Yes, yes. And Lit will write something against the establishment. L will needle Ricky. Lestat will mention som chemical I have never heard of. Queen Vic will say something insightful.
Yes I like routine things too

From me -
Shakespeare wrote better drama and comedy
James Joyce wrote longer sentences.
Everyone knows how to quote.
Even Ron Jeremy knew when to quit.

Everyone is right and everyone is wrong. 
Who would like some tea? 
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 16, 2012, 05:30:02 PM
From Sir Les -
Yes, yes. And Lit will write something against the establishment. L will needle Ricky. Lestat will mention som chemical I have never heard of. Queen Vic will say something insightful.
Yes I like routine things too

From me -
Shakespeare wrote better drama and comedy
James Joyce wrote longer sentences.
Everyone knows how to quote.
Even Ron Jeremy knew when to quit.

Everyone is right and everyone is wrong. 
Who would like some tea?

  I will have tea :cbc: :tea:   if there are snacks to go with it!
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 16, 2012, 05:30:36 PM
This is still going on?  :yawn:

Butterflies, if you don't like it here, leave and start your own place for the younger crowd. That will get you a better result than complaining incessantly about the age demographics of I2.


 :bunny:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 16, 2012, 05:31:14 PM
Estne thea darjeelingensis?  :orly:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 16, 2012, 05:31:39 PM
From Sir Les -
Yes, yes. And Lit will write something against the establishment. L will needle Ricky. Lestat will mention som chemical I have never heard of. Queen Vic will say something insightful.
Yes I like routine things too

From me -
Shakespeare wrote better drama and comedy
James Joyce wrote longer sentences.
Everyone knows how to quote.
Even Ron Jeremy knew when to quit.

Everyone is right and everyone is wrong. 
Who would like some tea?

  I will have tea :cbc: :tea:   if there are snacks to go with it!

What snacks did you bring from the Palace kitchen?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 16, 2012, 05:33:04 PM
One last insightful thought before I go babysit.

It seems like people are posting from adrenalin right now, the excitement of the argument.  Take a break and cool off for a while.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 16, 2012, 05:33:19 PM
Papiliones mihi grati sunt  :heart:
tyrannos oderunt papiliones :(
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 16, 2012, 05:34:18 PM
Yes Butterflies. I mentioned pandpora 53 minutes. Before. I used your mock concern/digust or whatever against me mentioning your efforts i bring up personal and private matters of odeon as to be simiar to your doing a callout against me for defending pandora (something like "you are doing her harm and are a bad friend for defending her and therefore highlighting what i said to her).

So YES I used her as an example to highlight a quirk in your argument style and then 53 minutes later or whatever CBC bought her up,

Once CBC bought her up, she stated she was confused as to what was going on and why you were amuseed at the reference to Pandora. (Some one that I HAD referenced 53 minutes before in case you believe I am trying to distance myself from this). I know that CBC knows Pandora from AFF. I knew what her names are over there. We are both from AFF and I was probably in the best position, ironically (given my lack of brevity), to succinctly get her up to speed. I did this, rather than leave her in the dark.

Now did I cause CBC to make the faux pas over Pandora? Did I quickly bring CBC up to speed? Did CBC know what was going on? Was she in need of some one to explain? As i knew how CBC would know Pandora, and where she could read at her leisure the association here that i referenced by links, was I well placed to let her know? Does any of these questions have anything to do whether I mentioned Pandora before?

OR

was I just desperate to mention Pandora?

Go for honesty and credible here Butterflies.

To paraphrase Odeon. Good rewrite Les :2thumbsup:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 16, 2012, 05:34:49 PM
From Sir Les -
Yes, yes. And Lit will write something against the establishment. L will needle Ricky. Lestat will mention som chemical I have never heard of. Queen Vic will say something insightful.
Yes I like routine things too

From me -
Shakespeare wrote better drama and comedy
James Joyce wrote longer sentences.
Everyone knows how to quote.
Even Ron Jeremy knew when to quit.

Everyone is right and everyone is wrong. 
Who would like some tea?

  I will have tea :cbc: :tea:   if there are snacks to go with it!

What snacks did you bring from the Palace kitchen?

  I brought carrot cake, enough for everyone!  :green:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 16, 2012, 05:35:01 PM
Papiliones mihi grati sunt  :heart:
tyrannos oderunt papiliones :(

Odi tyrannos!  :viking: :hug:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 16, 2012, 05:35:58 PM
You can read. You just don't understand. That's worse, IMHO.

Oh well.

You dont have the right to decide what one of Bods points I should comment on. That is very arrogant :thumbdn:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 16, 2012, 05:38:08 PM
Papiliones mihi grati sunt  :heart:
tyrannos oderunt papiliones :(

Odi tyrannos!  :viking: :hug:

tyrannos exsecutioni mandari debere :green: :green: :green:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 16, 2012, 05:39:58 PM
Papiliones mihi grati sunt  :heart:
tyrannos oderunt papiliones :(

Odi tyrannos!  :viking: :hug:

tyrannos exsecutioni mandari debere :green: :green: :green:

Vero! Sic semper tyrannis!  :viking:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 16, 2012, 05:47:44 PM
Papiliones mihi grati sunt  :heart:
tyrannos oderunt papiliones :(

Odi tyrannos!  :viking: :hug:

tyrannos exsecutioni mandari debere :green: :green: :green:

Vero! Sic semper tyrannis!  :viking:

      Quinquies  pro  fidelibus  defunctis!    :fiveshots:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 16, 2012, 06:43:34 PM
  I brought carrot cake, enough for everyone!  :green:

I call the gluten-free one!
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 16, 2012, 06:44:38 PM
Estne placenta carotae bona?  :-\
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 16, 2012, 06:46:45 PM
Delectamenti.  8)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 16, 2012, 06:47:13 PM
Bene, bene  :viking:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 16, 2012, 08:37:42 PM
Estne placenta carotae bona?  :-\

  It's not a flat cake, it's tall and moist and delicious!  Besides shredded carrots, it contains
   vanilla, cinnamon and pineapple, sometimes walnuts, and a cream cheese frosting.  :green:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 16, 2012, 11:10:40 PM
Yes Butterflies. I mentioned pandpora 53 minutes. Before. I used your mock concern/digust or whatever against me mentioning your efforts i bring up personal and private matters of odeon as to be simiar to your doing a callout against me for defending pandora (something like "you are doing her harm and are a bad friend for defending her and therefore highlighting what i said to her).

So YES I used her as an example to highlight a quirk in your argument style and then 53 minutes later or whatever CBC bought her up,

Once CBC bought her up, she stated she was confused as to what was going on and why you were amuseed at the reference to Pandora. (Some one that I HAD referenced 53 minutes before in case you believe I am trying to distance myself from this). I know that CBC knows Pandora from AFF. I knew what her names are over there. We are both from AFF and I was probably in the best position, ironically (given my lack of brevity), to succinctly get her up to speed. I did this, rather than leave her in the dark.

Now did I cause CBC to make the faux pas over Pandora? Did I quickly bring CBC up to speed? Did CBC know what was going on? Was she in need of some one to explain? As i knew how CBC would know Pandora, and where she could read at her leisure the association here that i referenced by links, was I well placed to let her know? Does any of these questions have anything to do whether I mentioned Pandora before?

OR

was I just desperate to mention Pandora?

Go for honesty and credible here Butterflies.

To paraphrase Odeon. Good rewrite Les :2thumbsup:

A re-write? OK. A rewrite would reason that I am changing the history and facts to misrepresent the situation

So let's not assert but instead ask.

1) Did CBC mention Pandora independently of me?
2) Was she aware of the fact that i had mentioned Pandora 53 minutes before hand?
3) Were both of our references linked?
4) Did the responses she got back make sense to her?
5) Did she post that she had no idea why this was this was funny?
6) Did i put her up to this?
7) Was Pandora known under another alias or two that CBC would know?
8) Was there anyone else online who knew her of old and knew both the aliases and where and how CBC would know her?
9) Did i do more in explaining to CBC in my post to her than mentioning her AFF name and linking the relevance to why people here knew who she was?

OK a big one....how is this a rewrite?

Holding rigidly onto your facepalm-worthy, failing position is rather embarassing. It was on a callout you made on me, it was when Ricky placed himself on ignore and....I see it slowly gettin there now. Keep going Butterflies I want to see where this ends up.

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 17, 2012, 03:41:07 AM
You can read. You just don't understand. That's worse, IMHO.

Oh well.

You dont have the right to decide what one of Bods points I should comment on. That is very arrogant :thumbdn:

You are absolutely right, I don't have that right. Is that what you think this is about, dear?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 17, 2012, 03:47:46 AM
I think the Latin is quite endearing, btw. The contents are laughable but the language almost gives the two of you some credibility. Almost. :)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 17, 2012, 05:38:53 AM
Lingua latina multum pulchra  8)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: El on November 17, 2012, 11:23:16 AM
  I brought carrot cake, enough for everyone!  :green:

I call the gluten-free one!
Save me a slice!

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BzTxyhhHESQ/TA_YBTKfzfI/AAAAAAAAABE/kuKvHrQbtZ8/s1600/Puppy_dogs.jpg)
Hey!  I totally have that poster!
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 17, 2012, 01:11:25 PM
Save me a slice!

It's yours.  :green:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 17, 2012, 01:37:30 PM
You can read. You just don't understand. That's worse, IMHO.

Oh well.

You dont have the right to decide what one of Bods points I should comment on. That is very arrogant :thumbdn:

You are absolutely right, I don't have that right. Is that what you think this is about, dear?


 :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

When the argument fails, revert to patronizing the woman. You fat sexist pig :facepalm2:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 17, 2012, 01:39:08 PM
Yes Butterflies. I mentioned pandpora 53 minutes. Before. I used your mock concern/digust or whatever against me mentioning your efforts i bring up personal and private matters of odeon as to be simiar to your doing a callout against me for defending pandora (something like "you are doing her harm and are a bad friend for defending her and therefore highlighting what i said to her).

So YES I used her as an example to highlight a quirk in your argument style and then 53 minutes later or whatever CBC bought her up,

Once CBC bought her up, she stated she was confused as to what was going on and why you were amuseed at the reference to Pandora. (Some one that I HAD referenced 53 minutes before in case you believe I am trying to distance myself from this). I know that CBC knows Pandora from AFF. I knew what her names are over there. We are both from AFF and I was probably in the best position, ironically (given my lack of brevity), to succinctly get her up to speed. I did this, rather than leave her in the dark.

Now did I cause CBC to make the faux pas over Pandora? Did I quickly bring CBC up to speed? Did CBC know what was going on? Was she in need of some one to explain? As i knew how CBC would know Pandora, and where she could read at her leisure the association here that i referenced by links, was I well placed to let her know? Does any of these questions have anything to do whether I mentioned Pandora before?

OR

was I just desperate to mention Pandora?

Go for honesty and credible here Butterflies.

To paraphrase Odeon. Good rewrite Les :2thumbsup:

A re-write? OK. A rewrite would reason that I am changing the history and facts to misrepresent the situation

So let's not assert but instead ask.

1) Did CBC mention Pandora independently of me?
2) Was she aware of the fact that i had mentioned Pandora 53 minutes before hand?
3) Were both of our references linked?
4) Did the responses she got back make sense to her?
5) Did she post that she had no idea why this was this was funny?
6) Did i put her up to this?
7) Was Pandora known under another alias or two that CBC would know?
8) Was there anyone else online who knew her of old and knew both the aliases and where and how CBC would know her?
9) Did i do more in explaining to CBC in my post to her than mentioning her AFF name and linking the relevance to why people here knew who she was?

OK a big one....how is this a rewrite?

Holding rigidly onto your facepalm-worthy, failing position is rather embarassing. It was on a callout you made on me, it was when Ricky placed himself on ignore and....I see it slowly gettin there now. Keep going Butterflies I want to see where this ends up.

Cool rewrite Bro :2thumbsup:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 17, 2012, 02:00:03 PM
Papiliones fortes sunt!  8)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 17, 2012, 02:10:18 PM
Papiliones fortes sunt!  8)

Papiliones fortes sunt, dum adipem tyrannus infirmus est :viking:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 17, 2012, 02:11:13 PM
Sic!  :viking:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 17, 2012, 02:54:45 PM
omg the Pandora shit again? :laugh:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 17, 2012, 03:42:17 PM
omg the Pandora shit again? :laugh:

Looks like it :facepalm2: Les seems to enjoy raking up the bitter past.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 17, 2012, 04:56:26 PM
You can read. You just don't understand. That's worse, IMHO.

Oh well.

You dont have the right to decide what one of Bods points I should comment on. That is very arrogant :thumbdn:

You are absolutely right, I don't have that right. Is that what you think this is about, dear?


 :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

When the argument fails, revert to patronizing the woman. You fat sexist pig :facepalm2:

I thought you'd bite.  :hahaha:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 17, 2012, 04:57:48 PM
I'd love another cat, but, that's not wise. I don't want a puppy, can I have some quality catfood instead?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 17, 2012, 04:59:21 PM
Prins vital care for adult cats please.  :tard:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 17, 2012, 06:39:14 PM
You can read. You just don't understand. That's worse, IMHO.

Oh well.

You dont have the right to decide what one of Bods points I should comment on. That is very arrogant :thumbdn:

You are absolutely right, I don't have that right. Is that what you think this is about, dear?


 :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

When the argument fails, revert to patronizing the woman. You fat sexist pig :facepalm2:

I thought you'd bite.  :hahaha:

Yeah right Jabba, dont pretend you were just fishing   :thumbdn:

I think that using yours and Les' logic, this proves without doubt that you are a male chauvinist pig :police:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 17, 2012, 06:40:54 PM
I'd love another cat, but, that's not wise. I don't want a puppy, can I have some quality catfood instead?

 :CanofWorms: :CanofWorms: :CanofWorms:

Or one of these? :shark:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 17, 2012, 06:42:18 PM
Squali fortes sunt  :viking:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 17, 2012, 07:10:38 PM
Yes Butterflies. I mentioned pandpora 53 minutes. Before. I used your mock concern/digust or whatever against me mentioning your efforts i bring up personal and private matters of odeon as to be simiar to your doing a callout against me for defending pandora (something like "you are doing her harm and are a bad friend for defending her and therefore highlighting what i said to her).

So YES I used her as an example to highlight a quirk in your argument style and then 53 minutes later or whatever CBC bought her up,

Once CBC bought her up, she stated she was confused as to what was going on and why you were amuseed at the reference to Pandora. (Some one that I HAD referenced 53 minutes before in case you believe I am trying to distance myself from this). I know that CBC knows Pandora from AFF. I knew what her names are over there. We are both from AFF and I was probably in the best position, ironically (given my lack of brevity), to succinctly get her up to speed. I did this, rather than leave her in the dark.

Now did I cause CBC to make the faux pas over Pandora? Did I quickly bring CBC up to speed? Did CBC know what was going on? Was she in need of some one to explain? As i knew how CBC would know Pandora, and where she could read at her leisure the association here that i referenced by links, was I well placed to let her know? Does any of these questions have anything to do whether I mentioned Pandora before?

OR

was I just desperate to mention Pandora?

Go for honesty and credible here Butterflies.

To paraphrase Odeon. Good rewrite Les :2thumbsup:

A re-write? OK. A rewrite would reason that I am changing the history and facts to misrepresent the situation

So let's not assert but instead ask.

1) Did CBC mention Pandora independently of me?
2) Was she aware of the fact that i had mentioned Pandora 53 minutes before hand?
3) Were both of our references linked?
4) Did the responses she got back make sense to her?
5) Did she post that she had no idea why this was this was funny?
6) Did i put her up to this?
7) Was Pandora known under another alias or two that CBC would know?
8) Was there anyone else online who knew her of old and knew both the aliases and where and how CBC would know her?
9) Did i do more in explaining to CBC in my post to her than mentioning her AFF name and linking the relevance to why people here knew who she was?

OK a big one....how is this a rewrite?

Holding rigidly onto your facepalm-worthy, failing position is rather embarassing. It was on a callout you made on me, it was when Ricky placed himself on ignore and....I see it slowly gettin there now. Keep going Butterflies I want to see where this ends up.

Cool rewrite Bro :2thumbsup:

Ah OK. Why didn't you just say that you did not know what rewrite meant.? See I am not THAT mean. If you are ignorant or stupid, just admit it. I will be sensitive to this lacking.
It may Explain all the misrepresentations and deviations from logic and truth .
So now, are you wilfully ignorant/stupid or is this not a bad act ?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 17, 2012, 07:20:52 PM
Yes Butterflies. I mentioned pandpora 53 minutes. Before. I used your mock concern/digust or whatever against me mentioning your efforts i bring up personal and private matters of odeon as to be simiar to your doing a callout against me for defending pandora (something like "you are doing her harm and are a bad friend for defending her and therefore highlighting what i said to her).

So YES I used her as an example to highlight a quirk in your argument style and then 53 minutes later or whatever CBC bought her up,

Once CBC bought her up, she stated she was confused as to what was going on and why you were amuseed at the reference to Pandora. (Some one that I HAD referenced 53 minutes before in case you believe I am trying to distance myself from this). I know that CBC knows Pandora from AFF. I knew what her names are over there. We are both from AFF and I was probably in the best position, ironically (given my lack of brevity), to succinctly get her up to speed. I did this, rather than leave her in the dark.

Now did I cause CBC to make the faux pas over Pandora? Did I quickly bring CBC up to speed? Did CBC know what was going on? Was she in need of some one to explain? As i knew how CBC would know Pandora, and where she could read at her leisure the association here that i referenced by links, was I well placed to let her know? Does any of these questions have anything to do whether I mentioned Pandora before?

OR

was I just desperate to mention Pandora?

Go for honesty and credible here Butterflies.

To paraphrase Odeon. Good rewrite Les :2thumbsup:

A re-write? OK. A rewrite would reason that I am changing the history and facts to misrepresent the situation

So let's not assert but instead ask.

1) Did CBC mention Pandora independently of me?
2) Was she aware of the fact that i had mentioned Pandora 53 minutes before hand?
3) Were both of our references linked?
4) Did the responses she got back make sense to her?
5) Did she post that she had no idea why this was this was funny?
6) Did i put her up to this?
7) Was Pandora known under another alias or two that CBC would know?
8) Was there anyone else online who knew her of old and knew both the aliases and where and how CBC would know her?
9) Did i do more in explaining to CBC in my post to her than mentioning her AFF name and linking the relevance to why people here knew who she was?

OK a big one....how is this a rewrite?

Holding rigidly onto your facepalm-worthy, failing position is rather embarassing. It was on a callout you made on me, it was when Ricky placed himself on ignore and....I see it slowly gettin there now. Keep going Butterflies I want to see where this ends up.

Cool rewrite Bro :2thumbsup:

Ah OK. Why didn't you just say that you did not know what rewrite meant.? See I am not THAT mean. If you are ignorant or stupid, just admit it. I will be sensitive to this lacking.
It may Explain all the misrepresentations and deviations from logic and truth .
So now, are you wilfully ignorant/stupid or is this not a bad act ?

I cant be bothered trying to read your essay.

I think what this situation calls for, is for you to rewrite that essay explaining why your previous essay wasnt a rewrite.

Hopefully your next essay should clear up any confusion :2thumbsup:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 17, 2012, 08:11:11 PM
Yes Butterflies. I mentioned pandpora 53 minutes. Before. I used your mock concern/digust or whatever against me mentioning your efforts i bring up personal and private matters of odeon as to be simiar to your doing a callout against me for defending pandora (something like "you are doing her harm and are a bad friend for defending her and therefore highlighting what i said to her).

So YES I used her as an example to highlight a quirk in your argument style and then 53 minutes later or whatever CBC bought her up,

Once CBC bought her up, she stated she was confused as to what was going on and why you were amuseed at the reference to Pandora. (Some one that I HAD referenced 53 minutes before in case you believe I am trying to distance myself from this). I know that CBC knows Pandora from AFF. I knew what her names are over there. We are both from AFF and I was probably in the best position, ironically (given my lack of brevity), to succinctly get her up to speed. I did this, rather than leave her in the dark.

Now did I cause CBC to make the faux pas over Pandora? Did I quickly bring CBC up to speed? Did CBC know what was going on? Was she in need of some one to explain? As i knew how CBC would know Pandora, and where she could read at her leisure the association here that i referenced by links, was I well placed to let her know? Does any of these questions have anything to do whether I mentioned Pandora before?

OR

was I just desperate to mention Pandora?

Go for honesty and credible here Butterflies.

To paraphrase Odeon. Good rewrite Les :2thumbsup:

A re-write? OK. A rewrite would reason that I am changing the history and facts to misrepresent the situation

So let's not assert but instead ask.

1) Did CBC mention Pandora independently of me?
2) Was she aware of the fact that i had mentioned Pandora 53 minutes before hand?
3) Were both of our references linked?
4) Did the responses she got back make sense to her?
5) Did she post that she had no idea why this was this was funny?
6) Did i put her up to this?
7) Was Pandora known under another alias or two that CBC would know?
8) Was there anyone else online who knew her of old and knew both the aliases and where and how CBC would know her?
9) Did i do more in explaining to CBC in my post to her than mentioning her AFF name and linking the relevance to why people here knew who she was?

OK a big one....how is this a rewrite?

Holding rigidly onto your facepalm-worthy, failing position is rather embarassing. It was on a callout you made on me, it was when Ricky placed himself on ignore and....I see it slowly gettin there now. Keep going Butterflies I want to see where this ends up.

Cool rewrite Bro :2thumbsup:

Ah OK. Why didn't you just say that you did not know what rewrite meant.? See I am not THAT mean. If you are ignorant or stupid, just admit it. I will be sensitive to this lacking.
It may Explain all the misrepresentations and deviations from logic and truth .
So now, are you wilfully ignorant/stupid or is this not a bad act ?

I cant be bothered trying to read your essay.

I think what this situation calls for, is for you to rewrite that essay explaining why your previous essay wasnt a rewrite.

Hopefully your next essay should clear up any confusion :2thumbsup:

No Butterflies, either you are playing stupid ....or its not an act.

I am just curious as to which it is.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 17, 2012, 08:42:41 PM
@Les. Im trying to see your point, but it would help if you could go into greater detail. It feels like youre being deliberately vague.

Just give me a nice little essay, preferably with a 10 minute powerpoint presentation, uploaded onto Youtube.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 17, 2012, 09:17:07 PM
@Les. Im trying to see your point, but it would help if you could go into greater detail. It feels like youre being deliberately vague.

Just give me a nice little essay, preferably with a 10 minute powerpoint presentation, uploaded onto Youtube.

But Butterflies if you do not understand what has been said, then surely all that you suggest will be a waste of everyone's time. It would be cruel too. If as i say you are really having difficulties with these concepts, then it would be cruel in the same way that giving a book of advanced astrophysics to a year 5 and telling them to study up as they will be tested on it shortly.
I simply assumed you were more intelligent and rational than you were letting on, and your ignorance and stupidity, and inability to represent any point in this discussion rationally and logically, was due to you playing the idiot.
I am big enough to recognise a fault. You are not playing the idiot because it is not an act.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 17, 2012, 09:46:10 PM
@Les. Im trying to see your point, but it would help if you could go into greater detail. It feels like youre being deliberately vague.

Just give me a nice little essay, preferably with a 10 minute powerpoint presentation, uploaded onto Youtube.

But Butterflies if you do not understand what has been said, then surely all that you suggest will be a waste of everyone's time. It would be cruel too. If as i say you are really having difficulties with these concepts, then it would be cruel in the same way that giving a book of advanced astrophysics to a year 5 and telling them to study up as they will be tested on it shortly.
I simply assumed you were more intelligent and rational than you were letting on, and your ignorance and stupidity, and inability to represent any point in this discussion rationally and logically, was due to you playing the idiot.
I am big enough to recognise a fault. You are not playing the idiot because it is not an act.

I love the way you subtly compare your essays with advanced astrophysics  :nerdy: :probe:
Its comments like that which ensure that this tete-a-tete will never go stale :thumbup:



Now, c'mon Les. You know you want to, so get typing. I want to see a 500 word essay on how you werent comparing your essays to astrophysics, or whatever random shite you tend to fill your essays with :squiddy:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 17, 2012, 09:51:31 PM
lol Butterflies, are yyou really hurt and upset after being called stupid by someone like Les? :laugh:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 17, 2012, 09:52:47 PM
Also I see Callaway is slowly but surely making her way thru this thread haha

I wonder how long it takes her to read a book :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 17, 2012, 09:57:50 PM
lol Butterflies, are yyou really hurt and upset after being called stupid by someone like Les? :laugh:

Yes. I sometimes find it very hurtful :'(

However, most of the time I cant help but be in awe of his delicious sense of irony.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Callaway on November 17, 2012, 10:33:03 PM
Also I see Callaway is slowly but surely making her way thru this thread haha

I wonder how long it takes her to read a book :zoinks:

Depends on the book.  I'm actually a pretty fast reader.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 17, 2012, 10:39:59 PM
@Les. Im trying to see your point, but it would help if you could go into greater detail. It feels like youre being deliberately vague.

Just give me a nice little essay, preferably with a 10 minute powerpoint presentation, uploaded onto Youtube.

But Butterflies if you do not understand what has been said, then surely all that you suggest will be a waste of everyone's time. It would be cruel too. If as i say you are really having difficulties with these concepts, then it would be cruel in the same way that giving a book of advanced astrophysics to a year 5 and telling them to study up as they will be tested on it shortly.
I simply assumed you were more intelligent and rational than you were letting on, and your ignorance and stupidity, and inability to represent any point in this discussion rationally and logically, was due to you playing the idiot.
I am big enough to recognise a fault. You are not playing the idiot because it is not an act.

I love the way you subtly compare your essays with advanced astrophysics  :nerdy: :probe:
Its comments like that which ensure that this tete-a-tete will never go stale :thumbup:



Now, c'mon Les. You know you want to, so get typing. I want to see a 500 word essay on how you werent comparing your essays to astrophysics, or whatever random shite you tend to fill your essays with :squiddy:

Not subtly comparing my essays to astrophysics.
Yes i know you will say "OMG Les, you typed astrophysics in your essays...look" So from the outset I know, I typed it. But again you are failing to see that i am comparing your inability to get any point of reference. I get it.
When you say "Good re-write", and what you are saying is a rewrite, is a list of questions to you...then that clearly is not a re-write and you do not know what a rewrite is OR are pretending not to know. When you say I am being paranoid and show as your evidence for this a a passage you wrote that I interpret differently apparently to you read it and neither your explanation nor my interpretaion was a source of paranoia to either of us.To be honest, the perfect example was at one time you called something I said a strawman and when I trotted out the definition you dowgraded it to the almost a strawman or the beginnings of a strawman. That is like calling someone "almost pregnant".
THIS all is what I mean. An "essay" from me will be pointing out your fail but will not give you a context because as a year 5 will not understand the foundations of the science enough to have a point of reference to astrosphysics to understand or appreciate astrophysics, neither is it fair for me to criticise you for not realising what strawman arguments are, what re-writes entail, what paranoia is or is not...none of these and other failings tht you make. It is either you are struggling with your critical reasoning and intellect, in which case good on you for trying OR it is all an act.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 17, 2012, 10:42:51 PM
lol Butterflies, are yyou really hurt and upset after being called stupid by someone like Les? :laugh:

 :lol1: No surprises here Adam. Here is Adam backing his friend, right or wrong. I remember Squiddy once saying that he HAD to back you two because you were his friends. Same deal. I understand it. I back positions not people but different strokes for different folks.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 17, 2012, 11:11:44 PM
When you say I am being paranoid and show as your evidence for this a a passage you wrote that I interpret differently apparently to you read it and neither your explanation nor my interpretaion was a source of paranoia to either of us.
It is either you are struggling with your critical reasoning and intellect, in which case good on you for trying OR it is all an act.



 :congrats: :congrats: :congrats:

See Les. This is what you can do when you really put your mind to it.

A perfect example of almost Randy-esque babble, followed by some of the most hilariously misplaced arrogance imaginable.

I thought you were trying to pick a fight with me, but all along, you were simply cementing your place as the true master of irony :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 17, 2012, 11:32:34 PM
Les overargues and misinterprets any point given to him. For example, he's starting to think I'm having a "I don't care" crusade even though I never explicitly said or implied it. He'll probably type a 12,000 word essay on how I'm wrong, on how I'm pretending to "not care" and how it's really me who misinterprets.

Every time he makes a boring long essay, I actually do imagine his avatar talking with a cigar in his mouth, all while smelling of piss and bending over in an authoritative manner over some "serious business" that he has to tend. Everything he does is an attempt to dick-swing and win the argument, even if his points are meandering and TL;DR. He tries to win by quantity, rather than quality, eroding the person's patience over time until they give up. This is why I try to personally stay out of debating with Les in a serious manner, because what could be discussed in less than a page with one person would take 400+ with Les, since he argues over the most trivial of points to the point of splitting hairs. He has done so already with you, as evidenced by the many threads that grace the debates between you and him.

In other words Butterflies, don't expect him to give up. Even if you're right.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 17, 2012, 11:56:45 PM
Les overargues and misinterprets any point given to him. For example, he's starting to think I'm having a "I don't care" crusade even though I never explicitly said or implied it. He'll probably type a 12,000 word essay on how I'm wrong, on how I'm pretending to "not care" and how it's really me who misinterprets.

Every time he makes a boring long essay, I actually do imagine his avatar talking with a cigar in his mouth, all while smelling of piss and bending over in an authoritative manner over some "serious business" that he has to tend. Everything he does is an attempt to dick-swing and win the argument, even if his points are meandering and TL;DR. He tries to win by quantity, rather than quality, eroding the person's patience over time until they give up. This is why I try to personally stay out of debating with Les in a serious manner, because what could be discussed in less than a page with one person would take 400+ with Les, since he argues over the most trivial of points to the point of splitting hairs. He has done so already with you, as evidenced by the many threads that grace the debates between you and him.

In other words Butterflies, don't expect him to give up. Even if you're right.

He reminds me of the drunk in the boozer, who thinks he wins every argument because he can shout louder than anyone else, and because hes still shouting after everyone else has gone home :nerdy:

But yes, I can imagine him hunched over his keyboard, sweat dripping onto the keys, as he furiously beats out another very strange, badly written essay on what an evil person I am.

I wonder what life must be like for someone like that :'( :'(
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 18, 2012, 12:08:43 AM
When you say I am being paranoid and show as your evidence for this a a passage you wrote that I interpret differently apparently to you read it and neither your explanation nor my interpretaion was a source of paranoia to either of us.
It is either you are struggling with your critical reasoning and intellect, in which case good on you for trying OR it is all an act.



 :congrats: :congrats: :congrats:

See Les. This is what you can do when you really put your mind to it.

A perfect example of almost Randy-esque babble, followed by some of the most hilariously misplaced arrogance imaginable.

I thought you were trying to pick a fight with me, but all along, you were simply cementing your place as the true master of irony :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:

Now "No you" defense. Why back yourself when you can deflect and project?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 18, 2012, 12:13:15 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen, case in point.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 12:17:05 AM
When you say I am being paranoid and show as your evidence for this a a passage you wrote that I interpret differently apparently to you read it and neither your explanation nor my interpretaion was a source of paranoia to either of us.
It is either you are struggling with your critical reasoning and intellect, in which case good on you for trying OR it is all an act.



 :congrats: :congrats: :congrats:

See Les. This is what you can do when you really put your mind to it.

A perfect example of almost Randy-esque babble, followed by some of the most hilariously misplaced arrogance imaginable.

I thought you were trying to pick a fight with me, but all along, you were simply cementing your place as the true master of irony :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:

Now "No you" defense. Why back yourself when you can deflect and project?

Im not deflecting anything. I dont know what youre trying to argue with me over.

Youre not going into enough detail for me. Could you please write out a proper essay, which Im sure I'll read, and treat with due respect.
That way there can be no misunderstandings :thumbup:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 18, 2012, 12:41:16 AM
Les overargues and misinterprets any point given to him. For example, he's starting to think I'm having a "I don't care" crusade even though I never explicitly said or implied it. He'll probably type a 12,000 word essay on how I'm wrong, on how I'm pretending to "not care" and how it's really me who misinterprets.

Every time he makes a boring long essay, I actually do imagine his avatar talking with a cigar in his mouth, all while smelling of piss and bending over in an authoritative manner over some "serious business" that he has to tend. Everything he does is an attempt to dick-swing and win the argument, even if his points are meandering and TL;DR. He tries to win by quantity, rather than quality, eroding the person's patience over time until they give up. This is why I try to personally stay out of debating with Les in a serious manner, because what could be discussed in less than a page with one person would take 400+ with Les, since he argues over the most trivial of points to the point of splitting hairs. He has done so already with you, as evidenced by the many threads that grace the debates between you and him.

In other words Butterflies, don't expect him to give up. Even if you're right.

You are imagining me as my avatar and are imagining what I (as my avatar) would do and smell like?
From such a start to such a brilliant essay I can only say that you may suffer for accuracy but you have shown a good aptitude for fiction writing.
 When you talk about me writing essays you are alluding to my long posts. This is not short mate. There is a word for people who condemn others for what they do.
Not that you care, right? ;)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 18, 2012, 12:47:51 AM
Case in point number 2, people.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Pyraxis on November 18, 2012, 12:51:08 AM
:trainwreck:
:trainwreck:
:trainwreck:
:trainwreck:
:trainwreck:
:trainwreck:
:trainwreck:
:trainwreck:
:trainwreck:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 18, 2012, 01:35:52 AM
Les overargues and misinterprets any point given to him. For example, he's starting to think I'm having a "I don't care" crusade even though I never explicitly said or implied it. He'll probably type a 12,000 word essay on how I'm wrong, on how I'm pretending to "not care" and how it's really me who misinterprets.

Every time he makes a boring long essay, I actually do imagine his avatar talking with a cigar in his mouth, all while smelling of piss and bending over in an authoritative manner over some "serious business" that he has to tend. Everything he does is an attempt to dick-swing and win the argument, even if his points are meandering and TL;DR. He tries to win by quantity, rather than quality, eroding the person's patience over time until they give up. This is why I try to personally stay out of debating with Les in a serious manner, because what could be discussed in less than a page with one person would take 400+ with Les, since he argues over the most trivial of points to the point of splitting hairs. He has done so already with you, as evidenced by the many threads that grace the debates between you and him.

In other words Butterflies, don't expect him to give up. Even if you're right.

He reminds me of the drunk in the boozer, who thinks he wins every argument because he can shout louder than anyone else, and because hes still shouting after everyone else has gone home :nerdy:

But yes, I can imagine him hunched over his keyboard, sweat dripping onto the keys, as he furiously beats out another very strange, badly written essay on what an evil person I am.

I wonder what life must be like for someone like that :'( :'(

While Shleed is busy investing his thought in imagining me as my avatar chomping on a big cigar and doing whatever (WTF?  :lol1:), what are you imagining? Me shouting at the keyboard and hunching, sweating and being furious? I don't know whether these fantasies you both have of me ought to be acknowledged or encouraged, but hey they could be worse.
I will take it as flattery that you both are fantasising about me.
Butterflies, I don't think you are evil and have never said so. Why misrepresent, again?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 18, 2012, 01:43:20 AM
I think I finally convinced her to not continue debating with you. :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 18, 2012, 01:54:53 AM
I think I finally convinced her to not continue debating with you. :zoinks:

....and?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 18, 2012, 02:35:05 AM
lol
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 18, 2012, 02:52:31 AM
lol

 :tard:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Adam on November 18, 2012, 03:02:14 AM
lol
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 18, 2012, 03:05:08 AM
lol

 :santa:

Well to those who were questioning lack of activity or drama and everyone being too nice.  :thumbup:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 18, 2012, 03:50:41 AM
You can read. You just don't understand. That's worse, IMHO.

Oh well.

You dont have the right to decide what one of Bods points I should comment on. That is very arrogant :thumbdn:

You are absolutely right, I don't have that right. Is that what you think this is about, dear?


 :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

When the argument fails, revert to patronizing the woman. You fat sexist pig :facepalm2:

I thought you'd bite.  :hahaha:

Yeah right Jabba, dont pretend you were just fishing   :thumbdn:

I think that using yours and Les' logic, this proves without doubt that you are a male chauvinist pig :police:

My god you are easy.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 18, 2012, 03:54:46 AM
Herp derp
[/quote

Fixed.

I really don't know why you bother when you don't have anything to say.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 18, 2012, 08:06:36 AM
Just to clarify when i made the suggestion of making a subforum for the younger ones i was indeed being ridiculous.

Also, i was not trying to speak on behalf of anyone.  Even if i had been trying to say what i thought Butterflies meant, it would have been kind of arrogant to assume that i knew what she was meaning,  and even more arrogant to assume that she alone represents the wants and needs of all young people on the site.

It was just my own perception.


This has turned into something else now.  If it were a pub, i doubt many punters would be left.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 18, 2012, 08:07:19 AM
Is that your arse, Bodie? Looks relly tasty  :eyebrows:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 18, 2012, 08:17:23 AM
Herp derp
[/quote

Fixed.

I really don't know why you bother when you don't have anything to say.

...did you deliberately shoot yourself in your foot?

 :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 10:01:02 AM
Les overargues and misinterprets any point given to him. For example, he's starting to think I'm having a "I don't care" crusade even though I never explicitly said or implied it. He'll probably type a 12,000 word essay on how I'm wrong, on how I'm pretending to "not care" and how it's really me who misinterprets.

Every time he makes a boring long essay, I actually do imagine his avatar talking with a cigar in his mouth, all while smelling of piss and bending over in an authoritative manner over some "serious business" that he has to tend. Everything he does is an attempt to dick-swing and win the argument, even if his points are meandering and TL;DR. He tries to win by quantity, rather than quality, eroding the person's patience over time until they give up. This is why I try to personally stay out of debating with Les in a serious manner, because what could be discussed in less than a page with one person would take 400+ with Les, since he argues over the most trivial of points to the point of splitting hairs. He has done so already with you, as evidenced by the many threads that grace the debates between you and him.

In other words Butterflies, don't expect him to give up. Even if you're right.

You are imagining me as my avatar and are imagining what I (as my avatar) would do and smell like?
From such a start to such a brilliant essay I can only say that you may suffer for accuracy but you have shown a good aptitude for fiction writing.
 When you talk about me writing essays you are alluding to my long posts. This is not short mate. There is a word for people who condemn others for what they do.
Not that you care, right? ;)

I kinda imagine that you probably smell a lot of stale sweat. This is not based on your avatar, but is instead based on my perception of you as a creepy, odd, dirty little man.

For some reason, I just imagine you having a secret stash of undies that you have surreptitiously snaffled from the washing lines of your attractive female neighbours.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 10:03:46 AM

Butterflies, I don't think you are evil and have never said so. Why misrepresent, again?

TBH, so many of your essays appear to have no purpose, other than to persuade the people who read them, that I am a bad person.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 18, 2012, 10:04:59 AM
Les overargues and misinterprets any point given to him. For example, he's starting to think I'm having a "I don't care" crusade even though I never explicitly said or implied it. He'll probably type a 12,000 word essay on how I'm wrong, on how I'm pretending to "not care" and how it's really me who misinterprets.

Every time he makes a boring long essay, I actually do imagine his avatar talking with a cigar in his mouth, all while smelling of piss and bending over in an authoritative manner over some "serious business" that he has to tend. Everything he does is an attempt to dick-swing and win the argument, even if his points are meandering and TL;DR. He tries to win by quantity, rather than quality, eroding the person's patience over time until they give up. This is why I try to personally stay out of debating with Les in a serious manner, because what could be discussed in less than a page with one person would take 400+ with Les, since he argues over the most trivial of points to the point of splitting hairs. He has done so already with you, as evidenced by the many threads that grace the debates between you and him.

In other words Butterflies, don't expect him to give up. Even if you're right.

You are imagining me as my avatar and are imagining what I (as my avatar) would do and smell like?
From such a start to such a brilliant essay I can only say that you may suffer for accuracy but you have shown a good aptitude for fiction writing.
 When you talk about me writing essays you are alluding to my long posts. This is not short mate. There is a word for people who condemn others for what they do.
Not that you care, right? ;)

I kinda imagine that you probably smell a lot of stale sweat. This is not based on your avatar, but is instead based on my perception of you as a creepy, odd, dirty little man.

For some reason, I just imagine you having a secret stash of undies that you have surreptitiously snaffled from the washing lines of your attractive female neighbours.
Dont worry, Al, she is just projecting her self-image on you. Just a creepy odd little woman.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 10:28:37 AM
Les overargues and misinterprets any point given to him. For example, he's starting to think I'm having a "I don't care" crusade even though I never explicitly said or implied it. He'll probably type a 12,000 word essay on how I'm wrong, on how I'm pretending to "not care" and how it's really me who misinterprets.

Every time he makes a boring long essay, I actually do imagine his avatar talking with a cigar in his mouth, all while smelling of piss and bending over in an authoritative manner over some "serious business" that he has to tend. Everything he does is an attempt to dick-swing and win the argument, even if his points are meandering and TL;DR. He tries to win by quantity, rather than quality, eroding the person's patience over time until they give up. This is why I try to personally stay out of debating with Les in a serious manner, because what could be discussed in less than a page with one person would take 400+ with Les, since he argues over the most trivial of points to the point of splitting hairs. He has done so already with you, as evidenced by the many threads that grace the debates between you and him.

In other words Butterflies, don't expect him to give up. Even if you're right.

You are imagining me as my avatar and are imagining what I (as my avatar) would do and smell like?
From such a start to such a brilliant essay I can only say that you may suffer for accuracy but you have shown a good aptitude for fiction writing.
 When you talk about me writing essays you are alluding to my long posts. This is not short mate. There is a word for people who condemn others for what they do.
Not that you care, right? ;)

I kinda imagine that you probably smell a lot of stale sweat. This is not based on your avatar, but is instead based on my perception of you as a creepy, odd, dirty little man.

For some reason, I just imagine you having a secret stash of undies that you have surreptitiously snaffled from the washing lines of your attractive female neighbours.
Dont worry, Al, she is just projecting her self-image on you. Just a creepy odd little woman.

Frankly Sky, you might be the only one on the site who can give Les a run for his money in the "sad old man" stakes :thumbup:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 18, 2012, 10:40:54 AM
Les overargues and misinterprets any point given to him. For example, he's starting to think I'm having a "I don't care" crusade even though I never explicitly said or implied it. He'll probably type a 12,000 word essay on how I'm wrong, on how I'm pretending to "not care" and how it's really me who misinterprets.

Every time he makes a boring long essay, I actually do imagine his avatar talking with a cigar in his mouth, all while smelling of piss and bending over in an authoritative manner over some "serious business" that he has to tend. Everything he does is an attempt to dick-swing and win the argument, even if his points are meandering and TL;DR. He tries to win by quantity, rather than quality, eroding the person's patience over time until they give up. This is why I try to personally stay out of debating with Les in a serious manner, because what could be discussed in less than a page with one person would take 400+ with Les, since he argues over the most trivial of points to the point of splitting hairs. He has done so already with you, as evidenced by the many threads that grace the debates between you and him.

In other words Butterflies, don't expect him to give up. Even if you're right.

You are imagining me as my avatar and are imagining what I (as my avatar) would do and smell like?
From such a start to such a brilliant essay I can only say that you may suffer for accuracy but you have shown a good aptitude for fiction writing.
 When you talk about me writing essays you are alluding to my long posts. This is not short mate. There is a word for people who condemn others for what they do.
Not that you care, right? ;)

I kinda imagine that you probably smell a lot of stale sweat. This is not based on your avatar, but is instead based on my perception of you as a creepy, odd, dirty little man.

For some reason, I just imagine you having a secret stash of undies that you have surreptitiously snaffled from the washing lines of your attractive female neighbours.
Dont worry, Al, she is just projecting her self-image on you. Just a creepy odd little woman.

Frankly Sky, you might be the only one on the site who can give Les a run for his money in the "sad old man" stakes :thumbup:
aww, jeez , I am crushed that you would say such a thing

Perhaps you could liven the place up by posting another photo of you on the toilet

Richard would be pleased.

Myself I thought you just looked stupid
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 18, 2012, 10:42:17 AM
And besides that, Al is my junior by probably 10 years.

You, may address me as Sir
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 10:45:50 AM
You can read. You just don't understand. That's worse, IMHO.

Oh well.

You dont have the right to decide what one of Bods points I should comment on. That is very arrogant :thumbdn:

You are absolutely right, I don't have that right. Is that what you think this is about, dear?


 :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

When the argument fails, revert to patronizing the woman. You fat sexist pig :facepalm2:

I thought you'd bite.  :hahaha:

Yeah right Jabba, dont pretend you were just fishing   :thumbdn:

I think that using yours and Les' logic, this proves without doubt that you are a male chauvinist pig :police:

My god you are easy.

Oh come on now Jabba. Just admit that you accidently let slip a sexist comment :lol1:

I wont think any less of you.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 10:48:36 AM
And besides that, Al is my junior by probably 10 years.

You, may address me as Sir

I think Les is a lot closer to being 20 years your junior.

I'll start calling you sir, when you become my superior in some way :thumbup:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 18, 2012, 11:21:50 AM
And besides that, Al is my junior by probably 10 years.

You, may address me as Sir

I think Les is a lot closer to being 20 years your junior.

I'll start calling you sir, when you become my superior in some way :thumbup:
I am your superior in age, even you have admitted that.

You yourself are just at that age where you are a young person wannabe.

Enjoy growing older :), dummy
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 18, 2012, 11:24:42 AM
I don't know who is worse, skyblue or richard.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 18, 2012, 11:27:45 AM
Herp derp
[/quote

Fixed.

I really don't know why you bother when you don't have anything to say.

...did you deliberately shoot yourself in your foot?

 :zoinks:

My apparent inability to post does in no way render my point moot. :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 18, 2012, 11:32:08 AM
You can read. You just don't understand. That's worse, IMHO.

Oh well.

You dont have the right to decide what one of Bods points I should comment on. That is very arrogant :thumbdn:

You are absolutely right, I don't have that right. Is that what you think this is about, dear?


 :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

When the argument fails, revert to patronizing the woman. You fat sexist pig :facepalm2:

I thought you'd bite.  :hahaha:

Yeah right Jabba, dont pretend you were just fishing   :thumbdn:

I think that using yours and Les' logic, this proves without doubt that you are a male chauvinist pig :police:

My god you are easy.

Oh come on now Jabba. Just admit that you accidently let slip a sexist comment :lol1:

I wont think any less of you.

You'd like that, I'm sure, but sorry--the comment was designed to provoke a response, which it did. Pissed you off.

If you'd rather try to explain away your inability to decipher Bodie's post, feel free to do so instead. :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 11:32:33 AM
And besides that, Al is my junior by probably 10 years.

You, may address me as Sir

I think Les is a lot closer to being 20 years your junior.

I'll start calling you sir, when you become my superior in some way :thumbup:
I am your superior in age, even you have admitted that.


Fair enough Sky. You are superior to me in age.
Im kinda jealous now.


Quote
Enjoy growing older :), dummy

Enjoy dying :) Turdbreath
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 18, 2012, 11:37:55 AM
I think this thread is really starting to turn a corner.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 11:40:39 AM
You can read. You just don't understand. That's worse, IMHO.

Oh well.

You dont have the right to decide what one of Bods points I should comment on. That is very arrogant :thumbdn:

You are absolutely right, I don't have that right. Is that what you think this is about, dear?


 :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

When the argument fails, revert to patronizing the woman. You fat sexist pig :facepalm2:

I thought you'd bite.  :hahaha:

Yeah right Jabba, dont pretend you were just fishing   :thumbdn:

I think that using yours and Les' logic, this proves without doubt that you are a male chauvinist pig :police:

My god you are easy.

Oh come on now Jabba. Just admit that you accidently let slip a sexist comment :lol1:

I wont think any less of you.

You'd like that, I'm sure, but sorry--the comment was designed to provoke a response, which it did. Pissed you off.

If you'd rather try to explain away your inability to decipher Bodie's post, feel free to do so instead. :zoinks:

I gonna try and call a bit of a timeout here.

Jabba, when this started, you were making all sorts of weird and wonderful accusations. It was fun for me, and probably for you too.

Now you only seem to be interested in trying to convince people that your comment wasnt sexist. This is just boring.

I have no real argument with you.If you have no more accusations to throw at me, would you not be best letting this die.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 11:42:39 AM
I don't know who is worse, skyblue or richard.

Definitely Skyblue. Richard creates amusement, and shows his rocks at every opportunity.

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 18, 2012, 12:03:12 PM
caeluscaeruleusunus non fortis est  :thumbdn:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 12:13:52 PM
caeluscaeruleusunus non fortis est  :thumbdn:

non valebat. Est debilis :(
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 18, 2012, 12:14:58 PM
 :agreed:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 18, 2012, 01:01:26 PM
Is that your arse, Bodie? Looks relly tasty  :eyebrows:

no, but this one is :laugh:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 18, 2012, 01:03:14 PM
 :drool:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 18, 2012, 01:06:21 PM
hey....stick around and you might see some itty bitty titties :bounce:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 18, 2012, 01:11:26 PM
I'm not that much into tits. I prefer the chocolate factory  :orly:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 18, 2012, 01:23:41 PM
I think this thread is really starting to turn a corner.

  'Fraid not.  Circles don't have corners.  :P
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 18, 2012, 01:47:54 PM
You can read. You just don't understand. That's worse, IMHO.

Oh well.

You dont have the right to decide what one of Bods points I should comment on. That is very arrogant :thumbdn:

You are absolutely right, I don't have that right. Is that what you think this is about, dear?


 :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

When the argument fails, revert to patronizing the woman. You fat sexist pig :facepalm2:

I thought you'd bite.  :hahaha:

Yeah right Jabba, dont pretend you were just fishing   :thumbdn:

I think that using yours and Les' logic, this proves without doubt that you are a male chauvinist pig :police:

My god you are easy.

Oh come on now Jabba. Just admit that you accidently let slip a sexist comment :lol1:

I wont think any less of you.

You'd like that, I'm sure, but sorry--the comment was designed to provoke a response, which it did. Pissed you off.

If you'd rather try to explain away your inability to decipher Bodie's post, feel free to do so instead. :zoinks:

I gonna try and call a bit of a timeout here.

Jabba, when this started, you were making all sorts of weird and wonderful accusations. It was fun for me, and probably for you too.

Now you only seem to be interested in trying to convince people that your comment wasnt sexist. This is just boring.

I have no real argument with you.If you have no more accusations to throw at me, would you not be best letting this die.

I don't have to explain anything. You, on the other hand, have left holes all over your so-called arguments. I find it extremely amusing that you are so easy to derail, tbh, and I might do it again, while waiting for you to fill those holes.

Not that I believe you will do it, dear.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 02:02:42 PM
You can read. You just don't understand. That's worse, IMHO.

Oh well.

You dont have the right to decide what one of Bods points I should comment on. That is very arrogant :thumbdn:

You are absolutely right, I don't have that right. Is that what you think this is about, dear?


 :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

When the argument fails, revert to patronizing the woman. You fat sexist pig :facepalm2:

I thought you'd bite.  :hahaha:

Yeah right Jabba, dont pretend you were just fishing   :thumbdn:

I think that using yours and Les' logic, this proves without doubt that you are a male chauvinist pig :police:

My god you are easy.

Oh come on now Jabba. Just admit that you accidently let slip a sexist comment :lol1:

I wont think any less of you.

You'd like that, I'm sure, but sorry--the comment was designed to provoke a response, which it did. Pissed you off.

If you'd rather try to explain away your inability to decipher Bodie's post, feel free to do so instead. :zoinks:

I gonna try and call a bit of a timeout here.

Jabba, when this started, you were making all sorts of weird and wonderful accusations. It was fun for me, and probably for you too.

Now you only seem to be interested in trying to convince people that your comment wasnt sexist. This is just boring.

I have no real argument with you.If you have no more accusations to throw at me, would you not be best letting this die.

I don't have to explain anything. You, on the other hand, have left holes all over your so-called arguments. I find it extremely amusing that you are so easy to derail, tbh, and I might do it again, while waiting for you to fill those holes.

Not that I believe you will do it, dear.

My "so-called arguments" werent even arguments. Youve just been taking everything Ive said, and tried to argue with me over it :facepalm2:

Im not even sure what you have derailed. That makes little sense.


Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 18, 2012, 02:27:12 PM
butterflies is  practice trolling


she needs more practice ::)


just let her prattle on
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 02:37:03 PM
butterflies is  practice trolling


she needs more practice ::)


just let her prattle on

If I was practice trolling, do you think Jabba and Les would still be trying to argue with me, 35 pages later :facepalm2:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 18, 2012, 02:54:12 PM
Les overargues and misinterprets any point given to him. For example, he's starting to think I'm having a "I don't care" crusade even though I never explicitly said or implied it. He'll probably type a 12,000 word essay on how I'm wrong, on how I'm pretending to "not care" and how it's really me who misinterprets.

Every time he makes a boring long essay, I actually do imagine his avatar talking with a cigar in his mouth, all while smelling of piss and bending over in an authoritative manner over some "serious business" that he has to tend. Everything he does is an attempt to dick-swing and win the argument, even if his points are meandering and TL;DR. He tries to win by quantity, rather than quality, eroding the person's patience over time until they give up. This is why I try to personally stay out of debating with Les in a serious manner, because what could be discussed in less than a page with one person would take 400+ with Les, since he argues over the most trivial of points to the point of splitting hairs. He has done so already with you, as evidenced by the many threads that grace the debates between you and him.

In other words Butterflies, don't expect him to give up. Even if you're right.

You are imagining me as my avatar and are imagining what I (as my avatar) would do and smell like?
From such a start to such a brilliant essay I can only say that you may suffer for accuracy but you have shown a good aptitude for fiction writing.
 When you talk about me writing essays you are alluding to my long posts. This is not short mate. There is a word for people who condemn others for what they do.
Not that you care, right? ;)

I kinda imagine that you probably smell a lot of stale sweat. This is not based on your avatar, but is instead based on my perception of you as a creepy, odd, dirty little man.

For some reason, I just imagine you having a secret stash of undies that you have surreptitiously snaffled from the washing lines of your attractive female neighbours.

You know, I could be all offended that some  girl half a world away is thinking weird shit about me based on nothing but dislike. But I tend to just smirk at it and think " what a loser. She is wasting her youth fantasising on what some Middle-aged Aussie bloke is like and what sexual fetishes he may have."
Are you serious when you write this and you want me to humour you by feigning offense or by posting denials?
I don't imagine you Butterflies. I visit a forum that you post on and sometimes I respond to those posts.
So no Butterflies. No defending my hygiene nor sexual preferences. I am instead going to ask you to have a think about what I just wrote.

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 18, 2012, 02:54:35 PM
butterflies is  practice trolling


she needs more practice ::)


just let her prattle on

If I was practice trolling, do you think Jabba and Les would still be trying to argue with me, 35 pages later :facepalm2:
yes....
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 03:04:55 PM
Les overargues and misinterprets any point given to him. For example, he's starting to think I'm having a "I don't care" crusade even though I never explicitly said or implied it. He'll probably type a 12,000 word essay on how I'm wrong, on how I'm pretending to "not care" and how it's really me who misinterprets.

Every time he makes a boring long essay, I actually do imagine his avatar talking with a cigar in his mouth, all while smelling of piss and bending over in an authoritative manner over some "serious business" that he has to tend. Everything he does is an attempt to dick-swing and win the argument, even if his points are meandering and TL;DR. He tries to win by quantity, rather than quality, eroding the person's patience over time until they give up. This is why I try to personally stay out of debating with Les in a serious manner, because what could be discussed in less than a page with one person would take 400+ with Les, since he argues over the most trivial of points to the point of splitting hairs. He has done so already with you, as evidenced by the many threads that grace the debates between you and him.

In other words Butterflies, don't expect him to give up. Even if you're right.

You are imagining me as my avatar and are imagining what I (as my avatar) would do and smell like?
From such a start to such a brilliant essay I can only say that you may suffer for accuracy but you have shown a good aptitude for fiction writing.
 When you talk about me writing essays you are alluding to my long posts. This is not short mate. There is a word for people who condemn others for what they do.
Not that you care, right? ;)

I kinda imagine that you probably smell a lot of stale sweat. This is not based on your avatar, but is instead based on my perception of you as a creepy, odd, dirty little man.

For some reason, I just imagine you having a secret stash of undies that you have surreptitiously snaffled from the washing lines of your attractive female neighbours.

You know, I could be all offended that some  girl half a world away is thinking weird shit about me based on nothing but dislike. But I tend to just smirk at it and think " what a loser. She is wasting her youth fantasising on what some mid
Middle-aged Aussie bloke is like and what sexual fetishes he may have."
Are you serious when you write this and you want mevtk humour you by feigning offense or by posting denials?
I don't imagine you Butterflies. I visit a forum that you post on and sometimes I respond to those posts.
So no Butterflies. No defending my hygiene nor sexual preferences. I am instead going to ask you to have a think about what I just wrote.

Of course you shouldnt be offended, and any denials would be futile.
Im just basing my opinions of you on the image you give off when you post here.

In reality, you could be a successful man, who washes regularly, changes his pants, and who doesnt creep out his neighbours.

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 18, 2012, 03:08:26 PM
(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p209/renaeden/AlS.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 18, 2012, 03:14:43 PM
butterflies is  practice trolling


she needs more practice ::)


just let her prattle on

She tends to put herself in that position.

Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 18, 2012, 03:33:44 PM
Les overargues and misinterprets any point given to him. For example, he's starting to think I'm having a "I don't care" crusade even though I never explicitly said or implied it. He'll probably type a 12,000 word essay on how I'm wrong, on how I'm pretending to "not care" and how it's really me who misinterprets.

Every time he makes a boring long essay, I actually do imagine his avatar talking with a cigar in his mouth, all while smelling of piss and bending over in an authoritative manner over some "serious business" that he has to tend. Everything he does is an attempt to dick-swing and win the argument, even if his points are meandering and TL;DR. He tries to win by quantity, rather than quality, eroding the person's patience over time until they give up. This is why I try to personally stay out of debating with Les in a serious manner, because what could be discussed in less than a page with one person would take 400+ with Les, since he argues over the most trivial of points to the point of splitting hairs. He has done so already with you, as evidenced by the many threads that grace the debates between you and him.

In other words Butterflies, don't expect him to give up. Even if you're right.

You are imagining me as my avatar and are imagining what I (as my avatar) would do and smell like?
From such a start to such a brilliant essay I can only say that you may suffer for accuracy but you have shown a good aptitude for fiction writing.
 When you talk about me writing essays you are alluding to my long posts. This is not short mate. There is a word for people who condemn others for what they do.
Not that you care, right? ;)

I kinda imagine that you probably smell a lot of stale sweat. This is not based on your avatar, but is instead based on my perception of you as a creepy, odd, dirty little man.

For some reason, I just imagine you having a secret stash of undies that you have surreptitiously snaffled from the washing lines of your attractive female neighbours.

You know, I could be all offended that some  girl half a world away is thinking weird shit about me based on nothing but dislike. But I tend to just smirk at it and think " what a loser. She is wasting her youth fantasising on what some mid
Middle-aged Aussie bloke is like and what sexual fetishes he may have."
Are you serious when you write this and you want mevtk humour you by feigning offense or by posting denials?
I don't imagine you Butterflies. I visit a forum that you post on and sometimes I respond to those posts.
So no Butterflies. No defending my hygiene nor sexual preferences. I am instead going to ask you to have a think about what I just wrote.

Of course you shouldnt be offended, and any denials would be futile.
Im just basing my opinions of you on the image you give off when you post here.

In reality, you could be a successful man, who washes regularly, changes his pants, and who doesnt creep out his neighbours.

Not that invested on what you think of me. You are not a very meaningful part of my life.
Denials will be futile? WTF? Hilarious
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 03:57:39 PM
Les overargues and misinterprets any point given to him. For example, he's starting to think I'm having a "I don't care" crusade even though I never explicitly said or implied it. He'll probably type a 12,000 word essay on how I'm wrong, on how I'm pretending to "not care" and how it's really me who misinterprets.

Every time he makes a boring long essay, I actually do imagine his avatar talking with a cigar in his mouth, all while smelling of piss and bending over in an authoritative manner over some "serious business" that he has to tend. Everything he does is an attempt to dick-swing and win the argument, even if his points are meandering and TL;DR. He tries to win by quantity, rather than quality, eroding the person's patience over time until they give up. This is why I try to personally stay out of debating with Les in a serious manner, because what could be discussed in less than a page with one person would take 400+ with Les, since he argues over the most trivial of points to the point of splitting hairs. He has done so already with you, as evidenced by the many threads that grace the debates between you and him.

In other words Butterflies, don't expect him to give up. Even if you're right.

You are imagining me as my avatar and are imagining what I (as my avatar) would do and smell like?
From such a start to such a brilliant essay I can only say that you may suffer for accuracy but you have shown a good aptitude for fiction writing.
 When you talk about me writing essays you are alluding to my long posts. This is not short mate. There is a word for people who condemn others for what they do.
Not that you care, right? ;)

I kinda imagine that you probably smell a lot of stale sweat. This is not based on your avatar, but is instead based on my perception of you as a creepy, odd, dirty little man.

For some reason, I just imagine you having a secret stash of undies that you have surreptitiously snaffled from the washing lines of your attractive female neighbours.

You know, I could be all offended that some  girl half a world away is thinking weird shit about me based on nothing but dislike. But I tend to just smirk at it and think " what a loser. She is wasting her youth fantasising on what some mid
Middle-aged Aussie bloke is like and what sexual fetishes he may have."
Are you serious when you write this and you want mevtk humour you by feigning offense or by posting denials?
I don't imagine you Butterflies. I visit a forum that you post on and sometimes I respond to those posts.
So no Butterflies. No defending my hygiene nor sexual preferences. I am instead going to ask you to have a think about what I just wrote.

Of course you shouldnt be offended, and any denials would be futile.
Im just basing my opinions of you on the image you give off when you post here.

In reality, you could be a successful man, who washes regularly, changes his pants, and who doesnt creep out his neighbours.

You are not a very meaningful part of my life.


If someone meant nothing to me, I would not spend a significant part of my free time composing detailed essays for them.

How worthless must your free time be, if you are prepared to spend this amount of time trying to debate absolutely nothing, with someone who means absolutely nothing to you?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 18, 2012, 04:03:00 PM
And here you are, replying.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 04:13:51 PM
And here you are, replying.

Well, naturally. I said I wouldnt "spend a significant part of my free time composing detailed essays for them."

I dont mind giving a quick reply.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 18, 2012, 04:24:40 PM
And here you are, replying.

Well, naturally. I said I wouldnt "spend a significant part of my free time composing detailed essays for them."

I dont mind giving a quickie.

Fixed   :oooh:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 18, 2012, 04:41:58 PM
I think this thread is really starting to turn a corner.

  'Fraid not.  Circles don't have corners.  :P
:lol1: :plus:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 18, 2012, 04:43:29 PM
Noli tangere circulos meos  :thumbdn:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 04:50:30 PM
And here you are, replying.

Well, naturally. I said I wouldnt "spend a significant part of my free time composing detailed essays for them."

I dont mind giving a quickie.

Fixed   :oooh:
:vibrator:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 18, 2012, 08:16:42 PM
Les overargues and misinterprets any point given to him. For example, he's starting to think I'm having a "I don't care" crusade even though I never explicitly said or implied it. He'll probably type a 12,000 word essay on how I'm wrong, on how I'm pretending to "not care" and how it's really me who misinterprets.

Every time he makes a boring long essay, I actually do imagine his avatar talking with a cigar in his mouth, all while smelling of piss and bending over in an authoritative manner over some "serious business" that he has to tend. Everything he does is an attempt to dick-swing and win the argument, even if his points are meandering and TL;DR. He tries to win by quantity, rather than quality, eroding the person's patience over time until they give up. This is why I try to personally stay out of debating with Les in a serious manner, because what could be discussed in less than a page with one person would take 400+ with Les, since he argues over the most trivial of points to the point of splitting hairs. He has done so already with you, as evidenced by the many threads that grace the debates between you and him.

In other words Butterflies, don't expect him to give up. Even if you're right.

You are imagining me as my avatar and are imagining what I (as my avatar) would do and smell like?
From such a start to such a brilliant essay I can only say that you may suffer for accuracy but you have shown a good aptitude for fiction writing.
 When you talk about me writing essays you are alluding to my long posts. This is not short mate. There is a word for people who condemn others for what they do.
Not that you care, right? ;)

I kinda imagine that you probably smell a lot of stale sweat. This is not based on your avatar, but is instead based on my perception of you as a creepy, odd, dirty little man.

For some reason, I just imagine you having a secret stash of undies that you have surreptitiously snaffled from the washing lines of your attractive female neighbours.

You know, I could be all offended that some  girl half a world away is thinking weird shit about me based on nothing but dislike. But I tend to just smirk at it and think " what a loser. She is wasting her youth fantasising on what some mid
Middle-aged Aussie bloke is like and what sexual fetishes he may have."
Are you serious when you write this and you want mevtk humour you by feigning offense or by posting denials?
I don't imagine you Butterflies. I visit a forum that you post on and sometimes I respond to those posts.
So no Butterflies. No defending my hygiene nor sexual preferences. I am instead going to ask you to have a think about what I just wrote.

Of course you shouldnt be offended, and any denials would be futile.
Im just basing my opinions of you on the image you give off when you post here.

In reality, you could be a successful man, who washes regularly, changes his pants, and who doesnt creep out his neighbours.

You are not a very meaningful part of my life.


If someone meant nothing to me, I would not spend a significant part of my free time composing detailed essays for them.

How worthless must your free time be, if you are prepared to spend this amount of time trying to debate absolutely nothing, with someone who means absolutely nothing to you?

I dunno. I would say that you can CE entertained or find an interest of pleasure in many things without being invested to the point that you fantasise about it.
If I watch a comedy movie on DVD, does that give me meaning or have I wasted 90 minutes of my life stupidly?
Silly way to frame it isn't it Butterflies? Not in any way an either/or. Silly to suggest I had to find you meaningful to reply to you, huh?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 18, 2012, 08:22:46 PM
If you replaced les's posts with this:

(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p209/renaeden/AlS.jpg)

It would still have the same message.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 18, 2012, 08:37:20 PM
 :green:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 08:40:02 PM
If you replaced les's posts with this:

(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p209/renaeden/AlS.jpg)

It would still have the same message.

You mean theres a message in Les' posts  :laugh:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 18, 2012, 08:45:24 PM
Les overargues and misinterprets any point given to him. For example, he's starting to think I'm having a "I don't care" crusade even though I never explicitly said or implied it. He'll probably type a 12,000 word essay on how I'm wrong, on how I'm pretending to "not care" and how it's really me who misinterprets.

Every time he makes a boring long essay, I actually do imagine his avatar talking with a cigar in his mouth, all while smelling of piss and bending over in an authoritative manner over some "serious business" that he has to tend. Everything he does is an attempt to dick-swing and win the argument, even if his points are meandering and TL;DR. He tries to win by quantity, rather than quality, eroding the person's patience over time until they give up. This is why I try to personally stay out of debating with Les in a serious manner, because what could be discussed in less than a page with one person would take 400+ with Les, since he argues over the most trivial of points to the point of splitting hairs. He has done so already with you, as evidenced by the many threads that grace the debates between you and him.

In other words Butterflies, don't expect him to give up. Even if you're right.

You are imagining me as my avatar and are imagining what I (as my avatar) would do and smell like?
From such a start to such a brilliant essay I can only say that you may suffer for accuracy but you have shown a good aptitude for fiction writing.
 When you talk about me writing essays you are alluding to my long posts. This is not short mate. There is a word for people who condemn others for what they do.
Not that you care, right? ;)

I kinda imagine that you probably smell a lot of stale sweat. This is not based on your avatar, but is instead based on my perception of you as a creepy, odd, dirty little man.

For some reason, I just imagine you having a secret stash of undies that you have surreptitiously snaffled from the washing lines of your attractive female neighbours.

You know, I could be all offended that some  girl half a world away is thinking weird shit about me based on nothing but dislike. But I tend to just smirk at it and think " what a loser. She is wasting her youth fantasising on what some mid
Middle-aged Aussie bloke is like and what sexual fetishes he may have."
Are you serious when you write this and you want mevtk humour you by feigning offense or by posting denials?
I don't imagine you Butterflies. I visit a forum that you post on and sometimes I respond to those posts.
So no Butterflies. No defending my hygiene nor sexual preferences. I am instead going to ask you to have a think about what I just wrote.

Of course you shouldnt be offended, and any denials would be futile.
Im just basing my opinions of you on the image you give off when you post here.

In reality, you could be a successful man, who washes regularly, changes his pants, and who doesnt creep out his neighbours.

You are not a very meaningful part of my life.


If someone meant nothing to me, I would not spend a significant part of my free time composing detailed essays for them.

How worthless must your free time be, if you are prepared to spend this amount of time trying to debate absolutely nothing, with someone who means absolutely nothing to you?

I dunno. I would say that you can CE entertained or find an interest of pleasure in many things without being invested to the point that you fantasise about it.
If I watch a comedy movie on DVD, does that give me meaning or have I wasted 90 minutes of my life stupidly?
Silly way to frame it isn't it Butterflies? Not in any way an either/or. Silly to suggest I had to find you meaningful to reply to you, huh?

I dont know what "CE entertained" means, but it pleases me that it gives you pleasure :thumbup:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: skyblue1 on November 18, 2012, 08:47:18 PM
Out of curiosity, have you ever seen Deadwood?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 18, 2012, 09:15:47 PM
Yes.

But for for appearances, it perfectly describes the posts Les makes.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 18, 2012, 09:53:12 PM
Les overargues and misinterprets any point given to him. For example, he's starting to think I'm having a "I don't care" crusade even though I never explicitly said or implied it. He'll probably type a 12,000 word essay on how I'm wrong, on how I'm pretending to "not care" and how it's really me who misinterprets.

Every time he makes a boring long essay, I actually do imagine his avatar talking with a cigar in his mouth, all while smelling of piss and bending over in an authoritative manner over some "serious business" that he has to tend. Everything he does is an attempt to dick-swing and win the argument, even if his points are meandering and TL;DR. He tries to win by quantity, rather than quality, eroding the person's patience over time until they give up. This is why I try to personally stay out of debating with Les in a serious manner, because what could be discussed in less than a page with one person would take 400+ with Les, since he argues over the most trivial of points to the point of splitting hairs. He has done so already with you, as evidenced by the many threads that grace the debates between you and him.

In other words Butterflies, don't expect him to give up. Even if you're right.

You are imagining me as my avatar and are imagining what I (as my avatar) would do and smell like?
From such a start to such a brilliant essay I can only say that you may suffer for accuracy but you have shown a good aptitude for fiction writing.
 When you talk about me writing essays you are alluding to my long posts. This is not short mate. There is a word for people who condemn others for what they do.
Not that you care, right? ;)

I kinda imagine that you probably smell a lot of stale sweat. This is not based on your avatar, but is instead based on my perception of you as a creepy, odd, dirty little man.

For some reason, I just imagine you having a secret stash of undies that you have surreptitiously snaffled from the washing lines of your attractive female neighbours.

You know, I could be all offended that some  girl half a world away is thinking weird shit about me based on nothing but dislike. But I tend to just smirk at it and think " what a loser. She is wasting her youth fantasising on what some mid
Middle-aged Aussie bloke is like and what sexual fetishes he may have."
Are you serious when you write this and you want mevtk humour you by feigning offense or by posting denials?
I don't imagine you Butterflies. I visit a forum that you post on and sometimes I respond to those posts.
So no Butterflies. No defending my hygiene nor sexual preferences. I am instead going to ask you to have a think about what I just wrote.

Of course you shouldnt be offended, and any denials would be futile.
Im just basing my opinions of you on the image you give off when you post here.

In reality, you could be a successful man, who washes regularly, changes his pants, and who doesnt creep out his neighbours.

You are not a very meaningful part of my life.


If someone meant nothing to me, I would not spend a significant part of my free time composing detailed essays for them.

How worthless must your free time be, if you are prepared to spend this amount of time trying to debate absolutely nothing, with someone who means absolutely nothing to you?

I dunno. I would say that you can CE entertained or find an interest of pleasure in many things without being invested to the point that you fantasise about it.
If I watch a comedy movie on DVD, does that give me meaning or have I wasted 90 minutes of my life stupidly?
Silly way to frame it isn't it Butterflies? Not in any way an either/or. Silly to suggest I had to find you meaningful to reply to you, huh?

I dont know what "CE entertained" means, but it pleases me that it gives you pleasure :thumbup:

Sure. You are unintentionally humorous. It is always a mild curiosity in how you will respond. I think that playing an online game, watching YouTube clips, watching TV, reading a book, reading and responding to Butterflies fail responses are all pleasurable and virtually bereft of meaning. You two fantasising about me? May or may not be meaningful or pleasurable.
I tend to stay away from unpleasurable things, because I am not a masochist or an idiot
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Beardy McFuckface on November 18, 2012, 10:29:28 PM
(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p209/renaeden/AlS.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 19, 2012, 12:26:40 AM
Maybe that image simply means something else to you. /shrugs
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 19, 2012, 04:18:15 AM
Sir Les certainly doesn't remind me of Al Swearengen. I have more in common with a Roman pony than he has with Al Swearengen.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 19, 2012, 04:25:03 AM
Sir Les certainly doesn't remind me of Al Swearengen. I have more in common with a Roman pony than he has with Al Swearengen.

How do you figure? No i am not saying I am remotely like Al Swearengen BUT as as far from similar than i am to an American political gangster in Wild West America, I would love to hear your case making you more similar to a Roman pony.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 19, 2012, 04:27:09 AM
Loquor latine. Fortis sum  8)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 19, 2012, 04:32:22 AM
Loquor latine. Fortis sum  8)

In the same way that Equines don't?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 19, 2012, 04:34:29 AM
Equi romani faciunt  8)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 19, 2012, 04:39:49 AM
Equi romani faciunt  8)

OK you are similar to a Roman horse because you speak Latin and the knight that rode them did as well? Cool story. Glad i asked
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 19, 2012, 04:40:30 AM
Good luck with trying to get correct Latin from Google Translate  :hahaha:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: Al Swearengen on November 19, 2012, 04:52:30 AM
Good luck with trying to get correct Latin from Google Translate  :hahaha:

No I do not speak Latin and neither do the ponies and you do and so you are like a Roman pony? It probably doesn't really need thrashing out but if you think you are like a Roman pony then good for you.
Hell for all I know you may like a bridle on, a bit inbetween your teeth, to be ridden hard whilst being smacked with a crop? I sure as hell don't know if that would be true, and would not want to know, were it true.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 19, 2012, 04:57:16 AM
 :zzz:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 19, 2012, 07:42:19 AM
Sir Les certainly doesn't remind me of Al Swearengen.  I have more in common with a Roman pony  than he has with Al Swearengen.

  Do you have a long, luxurious tail?  :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: 'andersom' on November 19, 2012, 08:51:58 AM
Sir Les certainly doesn't remind me of Al Swearengen.  I have more in common with a Roman pony  than he has with Al Swearengen.

  Do you have a long, luxurious tail?  :zoinks:

Do you really want an answer to this question? 
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 19, 2012, 09:17:47 AM
Sir Les certainly doesn't remind me of Al Swearengen.  I have more in common with a Roman pony  than he has with Al Swearengen.

  Do you have a long, luxurious tail?  :zoinks:

 :agreed: :viking:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: TheoK on November 19, 2012, 10:41:47 AM
 :heart:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 19, 2012, 10:42:01 AM
Can't we all just get along?   :kumbaya:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 28, 2012, 03:46:29 PM
:chores:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 28, 2012, 03:48:47 PM
This isn't locked anymore?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 28, 2012, 03:50:55 PM
This isn't locked anymore?

Everyone has had time to calm the fuck down  :M
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 28, 2012, 03:52:36 PM
This isn't locked anymore?

Everyone has had time to calm the fuck down  :M

Well, they've fucked off.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 28, 2012, 03:58:19 PM
  Time to get everybody all riled up again.   :trollface:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 28, 2012, 03:58:45 PM
This isn't locked anymore?

Everyone has had time to calm the fuck down  :M

Well, they've fucked off.

That's what I mean  :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 28, 2012, 03:59:02 PM
  Time to get everybody all riled up again.   :trollface:

I don't know how  :(
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 28, 2012, 04:01:12 PM
  Time to get everybody all riled up again.   :trollface:

Can't be arsed.

  Time to get everybody all riled up again.   :trollface:

I don't know how  :(

Not a lot you can do. They left. Schleed finally realised it's what he's been saying all along. He doesn't like me, he only wants to hang out with his friends. None of them are here I think.

Lit will be back, though.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 28, 2012, 04:04:49 PM
  Time to get everybody all riled up again.   :trollface:

Can't be arsed.

  Time to get everybody all riled up again.   :trollface:

I don't know how  :(

Not a lot you can do. They left. Schleed finally realised it's what he's been saying all along. He doesn't like me, he only wants to hang out with his friends. None of them are here I think.

Lit will be back, though.

Lit leaves every few months, right?  Usually after some argument about political philosophy?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 28, 2012, 04:07:46 PM
Yes. He will basically agree with someone like Schleed who will inevitably lose and fuck off as a result, and so he'll disappear for a few weeks or so.

I hope not, though, because in spite of our differences I really like Lit.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 28, 2012, 04:10:40 PM
Yes. He will basically agree with someone like Schleed who will inevitably lose and fuck off as a result, and so he'll disappear for a few weeks or so.

I hope not, though, because in spite of our differences I really like Lit.

Variety is the spice of life
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 28, 2012, 04:14:07 PM
And sameness is what counts for experience.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 28, 2012, 04:16:53 PM
I really don't mind arguments.  I usually feel inclined one way or another.  I wasn't fired up in this thread.  No one really riled me up.

Anyway,  does my bum look big in this? and has anyone seen my imaginary friend around?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 28, 2012, 04:17:44 PM
Anyway,  does my bum look big in this?

I can't tell from this angle  :autism:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 28, 2012, 04:18:15 PM
I really don't mind arguments.  I usually feel inclined one way or another.  I wasn't fired up in this thread.  No one really riled me up.

Anyway,  does my bum look big in this? and has anyone seen my imaginary friend around?

I need more pics to tell.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 28, 2012, 04:19:20 PM
So, anyway, back to my original post some 42 pages back.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 28, 2012, 04:19:26 PM
  Bodie, is that you in your avatar?   :apondering:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 28, 2012, 04:20:46 PM
...looking for a wide angle lens :zoinks:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 28, 2012, 04:22:29 PM
So, anyway, back to my original post some 42 pages back.  :zoinks:

You were about to say...?
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 28, 2012, 04:22:47 PM
...looking for a wide angle lens :zoinks:

I think any old webcam will do  :autism:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 28, 2012, 04:24:34 PM
...looking for a wide angle lens :zoinks:

I think any old webcam will do  :autism:

Yes. Please don't think we won't appreciate a simpler technology.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 28, 2012, 04:24:46 PM
  I haz no webcam, only my words.  :cbc:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 28, 2012, 04:25:26 PM
  Bodie, is that you in your avatar?   :apondering:

no, sadly not.  the woman in the picture has a bigger pair of titties :-*
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 28, 2012, 04:26:14 PM
...looking for a wide angle lens :zoinks:

I think any old webcam will do  :autism:

Yes. Please don't think we won't appreciate a simpler technology.

Bodie is already the bravest gal on here.  Not much left that she hasn't shown off at this point.  :)
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 28, 2012, 04:28:07 PM
...looking for a wide angle lens :zoinks:

I think any old webcam will do  :autism:

Yes. Please don't think we won't appreciate a simpler technology.

Bodie is already the bravest gal on here.  Not much left that she hasn't shown off at this point.  :)

Spokane is the only one who posted more, I think.

I don't understand either one, I have to admit. I do appreciate them both but I can't say I understand.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 28, 2012, 04:29:00 PM
anyway i have already posted myself in the noddy in this thread.  then it was locked and i couldn't remove it.   :laugh:

i am not shy :viking:
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 28, 2012, 04:30:02 PM
Spokane is the only one who posted more, I think.

Yeah, but that almost feels like kiddy porn.  She is clearly not all there, so it just seems really wrong and ... just yuck.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: odeon on November 28, 2012, 04:32:09 PM
anyway i have already posted myself in the noddy in this thread.  then it was locked and i couldn't remove it.   :laugh:

i am not shy :viking:

No, you most certainly are not. I have to say I don't really know how to react at times.
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: midlifeaspie on November 28, 2012, 04:33:05 PM
then it was locked and i couldn't remove it.   :laugh:

Oops.  I should hurry up and lock it again
Title: Re: 2012 - a retrospective
Post by: bodie on November 28, 2012, 04:41:41 PM
i think it's very tame really.  in my dark dark young days i used to do much worse stuff on web cam for money.... before i was all mumsy that is.

it became fine for me, as long as i wasn't being touched by anyone.  since then, i have no real hang ups about pics of me.  i like them.  i have some really good ones :P

anyway, more respectable i think, for me to do that