INTENSITY²
Arena for the Competitive => Main Event Callouts => Topic started by: odeon on March 31, 2013, 04:32:11 PM
-
Show me the rule I changed to ban your sockpuppet.
Does it bother you now that you can no longer hide behind a sockpuppet when trolling a troll? Poow wittle Scwappy. Time you found guts enough to back up your words. I know, you've dodged every thread and every post where you're asked to back your shit up, but it ends here.
You've been the exception to an otherwise consistent policy here, actually. If anything, I've been nice and allowed you to keep your little sock when others haven't been allowed to register theirs. So c'mon, show me. Back up your words, just for once. Or is the karma log the closest you dare to be in a conflict?
-
Before we go any further you have to answer this question with a yes or a no.
If I show that you're wrong, will you admit that you were wrong and apologize?
Oh, one other thing, unban my sock. It's a legit account that has broken no rules.
-
I knew you were sensitive but not *that* sensitive.
Show me the rule I changed.
-
Oh, and I thought you knew the rules in a callout. I don't have to do anything other than back up my words and stay out of the peanut gallery.
And no; your sock stays gone. I've had enough of you hiding behind a sock when you decide trolling is fun.
-
Take your time. :yawn:
-
I take that as a no. So since you've made it clear that you don't feel obligated to debate in good faith, you can go fuck yourself. I'm done interacting with you, period.
For the rest of you, to set the record straight, my sock was one of 12 that were part of the same usergroup. 6 other of these socks had multiple posts with the user being active several months after the fact, so it is clear that these were approved sock accounts. Go look them up in the Members lists, they're there.
Now at some point or another some kind of prohibition on socks was passed, I wasn't privy to when this happened or how. However, after it was decided by whomever that there were to be no new socks, they did not delete the Sockpuppet Alert! usergroup, nor did they ban the accounts. Proof of this is that i was still able to post with my account, and when I did, over the course of several years, site management laughed along with my antics, cheered me on and plussed my karma. There was no if, ands or butts about the fact that site management gave full approval to these authorized socks. They were obviously covered by some kind of grandfather clause.
Fast forward to a couple days ago. Odeon, seeing that I used my sock, decided to take cheap revenge over butthurt from some other thread. So being the playground bully type that he is, he took my toy, shoved me to the ground and kicked sand in my face becuase he's just that kind of insecure control freak. What a loser. :hahaha:
So there you have it people, mine was far from being the only sock account floating around and as far as I'm concerned, anyone else here who wants a sock for comedy purposes, should be allowed to do so. :M
-
Poor Scwappy feeling butthurt? I guess you're not going to back up your shit, then. Not feeling safe enough? Nice cop-out, considering that you knew right from the start that you wouldn't be able to prove anything.
As for the Sockpuppet alert member group, it was created long after the socks and I do remember why: the admins got annoyed with cunts like you trolling endlessly. Why you don't have the guts to do it with your own account I still don't understand but seeing that you are a spineless little coward I'm sure that's at least part of the reason.
You are the classic internet tough guy, at his toughest when hiding.
As for your banned sock, I suspect either you created it when you were an admin or someone like Cal or Hadron did it for you. Isn't that right, Scwappy?
-
Just spent some time checking the sockpuppet alert group. My recollection is correct. You created your account yourself. The same is true for a majority of the socks--they were created by members who were admins at the time (not necessarily at the same time, mind; there was no real organised effort) and the pattern is reasonably clear. There is also at least one sock that wasn't created as such but happened to share an IP with an existing member and one that was the first account of a member who lost her account details later on.
Of the 13 members in the group, 7 have posted. Of those 7, only you have posted after March 2008. You have a whopping 158 posts while the next is drucella with 34, none of which was written after 2006. Drucella, on the other hand, was used by several people IIRC. I think this was the account used to heckle Alex Plank with in the early days.
March 2008, as you may recall, was when the second direct democracy experiment finally ended.
So no, there was never a sockpuppet policy but there were temp admins who created socks while being admins, at a time when the site changed admins more often than you change underwear but with about the same results. When you and your lot had killed the democracy experiment, no new sockpuppets were registered. Why do you suppose that is, Scwappy?
And now that you are trying, why do you suppose none of them posted after March 2008 and why none of them posted much to begin with?
-
How's that backing up your shit thing coming?
-
Am I to assume that "done with interacting with you" means you won't back up your words? That's pretty weak.
I think you are probably a bit too sensitive for this place after all.
-
I've been thinking about callouts.
Callouts are the mechanism we have for settling matters. Basically, one member asks another member to back up his or her words while the other members may or may not comment in a peanut gallery. Once the callout is over, the peanut gallery will usually sort of decide who came out the winner. Other than the peanut gallery staying out of the callout and vice versa, that's about it as far as rules go.
No other preconditions, in other words. No promises of apologies, no requirement to admit anything afterwards. Nevertheless, in a callout in good faith that sort of thing frequently happens anyway because life is expected to go on and postwhoring resume.
Good faith, then. What does it mean?
Well, as far as I can determine, the above and that's it. Think about it. A callout happens when emotions are flying high and people are upset. Insults are traded and the ring is set up. Imagine two boxers warming up with the crowd cheering them on and the guy in the striped shirt barely being able to keep them apart. Can you imagine one of the boxers telling the other that he's only going to fight if the other will say he is sorry and admit defeat if he loses?
One would think that a KO would be enough. And if there's no KO, points are awarded and that should be that.
In the interest of good sportsmanship, they might still shake hands afterwards and admit whatever needs to be admitted, but that's after the fight. No way it happens before, no way it's agreed on before. It's in the nature of the fight.
The comparison is not perfect but the basics hold, IMO. Life does go on and there is usually a winner of sorts, decided here by the onlookers.
But to demand the sorry before the argument seems rather pointless to me. If anything, it feels a bit desperate and a copout, a convenient way to exit a lost cause. That, of course, is the fighter in me talking but nevertheless it's not part of the setup and nor should it be.
If we set up preconditions, I think callouts lose some of whatever meaning they have.
-
As far as I can see, this callout is over. Scrap has not replied over a number of days and said that he won't, so I will take it as read.
Look, I see things the same way. At the same time no problem in asking for anything in a callout. Callout should be airing of grievances rather than letting them fester. It helps clarify matters. Miscommunications, Misunderstood things, Different perspectives or even just a chance to expose bullshit. All good.
What I hate is people being sneaky or underhanded. I say throw it all out there. You have a dispute big enough to put it up for public scrutiny and risk being embarrassed by your opposition? Go for it, call them out. Make a claim, build a case.
It is a lot more honest and transparent and resolves a lot more than the alternative.
-
Yes, if there are grievances, this is the place where to settle them.
-
This callout is better than that piece of crap known as Twilight :D :LOL:
-
Anything is better than Twilight. :P
-
The only acceptable twilight is the one that happens twice a day, without any action from Meyers.
-
I don't think the loser of a callout should have to apologize. That feels way too much like a first grade teacher hauling up a couple squabbling kids by the scruff of their neck and demanding "apologies" which are then given, with zero sincerity, through gritted teeth and with sullen eyes. Only to wait until after school when the kids have at it again with no meddling schoolmarm interference.
There's a certain point of honor in conceding gracefully. But there's also value in standing by your opinions even in the face of intense opposition. A baying crowd is not always right just because they're in the majority. I've seen another callout system where the loser is forbidden from posting again until they apologize to the winner. That's bullshit IMO, and goes against the independent spirit that so many people on the spectrum (and off it) have developed. It's enough of a challenge to stick around and keep your head up after you've taken a hard loss in a callout. I see no reason to drag people through the mud in any kind of forced humiliation.
The dynamics of Scrap's demand are slightly different, because it's hard to imagine the site owner slinking off with his tail between his legs even if he was defeated in a callout. It is, however, easier to imagine his refusing to concede defeat in a draw, and then "winning" by virtue of his position rather than the merits of his argument. Since one of the original points of this callout was the question of whether it was legitimate for Odeon to ban Scrap's sock out of personal vindictiveness rather than an established site rule, I can see how Scrap might believe Odeon might do a similar thing if he got butthurt from losing a callout. I don't personally think Odeon would, but eh, I'm a (relatively) neutral party. Hence Scrap might be asking for the promise of an apology to compensate for the risk of going up against further vindictiveness which he would be powerless to prevent.
-
Not personal vindictiveness, though, Pyraxis, no butthurt involved. Scrap's sock had been the exception for ages when the idiot troll came along spamming the board with the big red lettering. I set out to clean up when I logged on in the morning only to discover that Scrap had made that task more difficult by trolling.
That's when I thought enough is enough.
I don't want to "win" because of my position here and I'd like to think that I can concede gracefully, but there's no way I'll agree to apologising before the callout was under way.
And I realise meeting me in a callout is special because of my position, but I don't think I have acted out of vindictiveness because of an outcome I didn't like.
-
Odeon, did you offer scrap a chance to cease and desist with his trolling sock before you simply banned it?
If not then you can certainly see why scrap thinks it might be revenge for a different disagreement you both had.
Scrap has been a member o this community for a very long time. And, it has been established that his sock puppet was the exception (grandfathered in), if you simply took unilateral action then I can certainly understand (and feel) his concern.
Clearly, though, you both have issues empathizing with others. Why not call this a wash, give him back his seldom used plaything and ask him to be respectful in the future when you are cleaning up a mess on the site?
Compromise.
-
Why should his sock be the exception, McJ? What he did is just about the only thing he has ever used his sock for. Either nobody gets to use sockpuppets or everyone does. A compromise to sooth Scrap's butthurt is poor site policy, IMHO.
-
It looks bad for you. He claimed that he was grandfathered in, which you didn't answer.
And that the only reason he lost it now is that you were but hurt by something else he did recently. Basically he is claiming that you are punishing him, a grown man, because he hurt your feelings.
All you said in response was a casual, no, not butt hurt.
But he evidence doesn't add up. I think he has a point. Why did he lose his suck puppet now, after all these years....especially if (as you claim) he only used it now as he had the entire time he had it.
Why now?
-
Punishing a member because the admin is butt hurt is poor site policy...IMHO.
-
Gary_Glitter and JelloBiafra are my sock puppets. I don't need them. I don't see a use for them. I am not butt hurt. I hope I haven't butt hurt anyone here.
This would be a good time to close mine. Or have a discussion whether or not they should exist.
-
I don't like these types of "You mad brah" type claims. Odeon says no and you say "maybe you were". Odeon knows his mind.....but maybe he is lying.
I think that a case of correlation can certainly be made between double the fun to clean up a troll's handiwork with Scrap "counter trolling" but a weaker one would be Odeon's vindictiveness (for that we would have to assume Odeon WAS driven to vindictiveness from a post of Scrap's). Neither is necessarily a causality. I know what I would hang my hat on.
As for callouts on Odeon is great to watch in a callout. Not much fun arguing against in one. Hard work really. That said, I think he ought to be subject to the "privilege of being able to be able to make callouts or have them made on him
-
Sure. It still doesn't answer the questions:
Was scrap given the opportunity to cease and desist?
If not, why now?
Until those two are clarified then the 'you mad brah' claim is valid.
-
Sure. It still doesn't answer the questions:
Was scrap given the opportunity to cease and desist?
If not, why now?
Until those two are clarified then the 'you mad brah' claim is valid.
I don't think he was. From the sounds of it (I may be wrong) doesn't make Odeon was cleaning up two lots of spamming and the fact that one of them was a sockpuppet account of Scrap's that was past its used by date was not something to give him second thoughts. That is my understanding. That doesn't make a claim to butthurt one way or another
-
As a long time member, respected or not, should scrap be afforded a bit more consideration than was given?
Odeon said himself that he knew of the sock, and scrap used it the same way in the past.
Why now? Why not send scrap a pm asking him to stop while he cleaned up?
-
As a long time member, respected or not, should scrap be afforded a bit more consideration than was given?
Odeon said himself that he knew of the sock, and scrap used it the same way in the past.
Why now? Why not send scrap a pm asking him to stop while he cleaned up?
I am on going on what Odeon says (and knowing the kind of big red letter spamming) that when scrap joined in with this too, it was the straw that broke the camels back and that Scrap had been an obvious exception to an enforced rule.
-
Based on that logic, and I know this is just conjecture....
Scrap was right, he was grandfathered in.
Odeons words do matter.
And still:
As a long term member was scrap asked to stop?
Why now?
I have stated that I don't are to have a sock account myself. But obviously it is important to scrap.
I'm just a freedom loving guy trying to figure this out. And as an adult I think it's lame how dismissive odeon is acting. Scrap, or any member deserves more.
-
Based on that logic, and I know this is just conjecture....
Scrap was right, he was grandfathered in.
Odeons words do matter.
And still:
As a long term member was scrap asked to stop?
Why now?
I have stated that I don't are to have a sock account myself. But obviously it is important to scrap.
I'm just a freedom loving guy trying to figure this out. And as an adult I think it's lame how dismissive odeon is acting. Scrap, or any member deserves more.
I have no real investment in things BUT if what we are saying is that Scrap evading a previously established and enforced sockpuppet ban equals grandfathering in? I don't think so.
If we are saying that he ought to be an exception to the rules and get other benefits the rest of us rabble? I don't think so.
If we are saying that his using the sockpuppet gives benefit to the forum and is any more than textual masturbation for Scrap? I don't think so.
But then it is about whether in this instance Scrap gets his way and why? i think that if the only counterpoint is that maybe Odeon was butthurt and maybe scrap is emotionally attached to a sockpuppet...well i think there may be bigger issues to concentrate on?
EDIT: Possibly badly put. I do not think it not worth asking but I think that the reasoning in countering sounds valid and bears well under scrutiny. If after the back and forth we are down to these two points that maybe Scrap is too attached to a sock and maybe Odeon WAS butthurt as well, then I think there is really not a lot in it.
-
Just spent some time checking the sockpuppet alert group. My recollection is correct. You created your account yourself. The same is true for a majority of the socks--they were created by members who were admins at the time
This is just another bullshit lie from odeon.
I had my sock account LONG before I was an admin.
My sock was approved by site management.
I didn't "get around a sock ban", there was no prohibition on socks at the time.
My account was grandfathered in, it's not my fault those other socks didn't chose to post past a certain date.
-
Just spent some time checking the sockpuppet alert group. My recollection is correct. You created your account yourself. The same is true for a majority of the socks--they were created by members who were admins at the time
This is just another bullshit lie from odeon.
I had my sock account LONG before I was an admin.
My sock was approved by site management.
I didn't "get around a sock ban", there was no prohibition on socks at the time.
My account was grandfathered in, it's not my fault those other socks didn't chose to post past a certain date.
Your account was created when you were an admin. Go check.
-
It looks bad for you. He claimed that he was grandfathered in, which you didn't answer.
And that the only reason he lost it now is that you were but hurt by something else he did recently. Basically he is claiming that you are punishing him, a grown man, because he hurt your feelings.
All you said in response was a casual, no, not butt hurt.
But he evidence doesn't add up. I think he has a point. Why did he lose his suck puppet now, after all these years....especially if (as you claim) he only used it now as he had the entire time he had it.
Why now?
Because I got fed up cleaning up after the troll. I've said this a number of times. You can choose to believe it, you can choose to say I'm lying. If the latter, you'd better back up your words.
I've also said, more than once, that yes, his sock is known, it's the only one being used. Incidentally, it's only used for trolling, something that Scrap could easily do with his usual account, just as anyone else. He'd be no more incognito with the sock other than with n00bs or relative n00bs, though. Anyway, grandfathered in is sort of wrong, tolerated is more right. Until that last troll, that is. The fact is that we've not allowed any new socks to register for a long time, and the fact is that his was the only one active after March 2008 that I know of.
And no, I didn't ban it because of some imagined previous butthurt. No idea what he is referring to, tbh. If anything, before this I thought we might be civil to each other. So no; no butthurt. If you think I'm lying, back it up, mate, instead of producing vague insinuations. I know you do a lot of those and you are very good at them, but unless you have proof perhaps you'd better leave it be and admit that you don't have proof.
-
Punishing a member because the admin is butt hurt is poor site policy...IMHO.
Again, either back it up or admit that you don't have proof.
-
Sure. It still doesn't answer the questions:
Was scrap given the opportunity to cease and desist?
If not, why now?
Until those two are clarified then the 'you mad brah' claim is valid.
Tell me why I should have. If he wants to troll, one account should be enough. Tell me why he is special. He could have trolled all he wanted with the account he uses. He chose to use the sock. Did you ask yourself why?
No butthurt involved. Again, if you think otherwise, back up your words.
-
And still:
As a long term member was scrap asked to stop?
What difference does that make? Should we have different rules for n00bs? You know perfectly well--at least if you choose to believe me or parts--that we haven't allowed new socks to register for a long time so I fail to see what point you are trying to make, if any. Or is it just for more drama?
-
Not sure if I need to back up my words. All I said is that it looked bad. And you were dismissive. Due to the timing.
You stated above that you don't think it is necessary to ask a long term member about changes you make (unilaterally) on how they utilize intensity.
Still the question remains: why now?
Also a new question arises: you stated that sock puppets are not allowed. For the sake of simplicity I'll assume this was debated and agreed apron by the majority.
Yet you are adamant that scrap made the sock puppet account when he was administrator (ihave no clue, these are your words.
The question....are administrators immune from the same rules as regular members?
If not, then why didn't you advise him at that time?
1. Why now?
2. Are admins not held to the same set of rules as regular members?
-
Since you stated each time...back up my words....it is clear that I should address this.
I will once freedom here is legitimate. If you are making spur of he moment decisions about how long term members utilize heir experience here, without insulting with them first, I am forced to believe that my words really don't matter.
Really, I have no investment in this matter. As a matter if fact, scrap told me that it will do no good since you always rationalize your positions and never admit hat perhaps things could have been handled differently.
-
Not sure if I need to back up my words. All I said is that it looked bad. And you were dismissive. Due to the timing.
I told you were good at insinuation.
You stated above that you don't think it is necessary to ask a long term member about changes you make (unilaterally) on how they utilize intensity.
Still the question remains: why now?
I answered you why. If you think I'm lying, back up your words.
Also a new question arises: you stated that sock puppets are not allowed. For the sake of simplicity I'll assume this was debated and agreed apron by the majority.
I said that new socks haven't been allowed for a long time. Not the same thing, really, is it? For the sake of simplicity, I'll simply point out that this has not been a democracy since Calandale, Scrap and others trashed the experiment. Remember that, McJ?
Yet you are adamant that scrap made the sock puppet account when he was administrator (ihave no clue, these are your words.
Have a look, then. You won't need admin powers to find out.
The question....are administrators immune from the same rules as regular members?
?
If not, then why didn't you advise him at that time?
1. Why now?
I have said why, repeatedly. Did you miss my every reply or do you just ignore them?
2. Are admins not held to the same set of rules as regular members?
I don't understand this comment. Please explain.
-
Since you stated each time...back up my words....it is clear that I should address this.
I will once freedom here is legitimate. If you are making spur of he moment decisions about how long term members utilize heir experience here, without insulting with them first, I am forced to believe that my words really don't matter.
Really, I have no investment in this matter. As a matter if fact, scrap told me that it will do no good since you always rationalize your positions and never admit hat perhaps things could have been handled differently.
Neat. Is me "rationalising my position" all that is stopping you (or him) now? What you are saying is that I don't have the same right to a callout than does everyone else. I was the one to call him out, not the other way around.
Again, if you think I did what I did out of butthurt rather than why I said I did, back up your words, don't hide behind irrelevance.
-
And yes, McJ, you do need to back up your words now. Claim something, back it up. Don't move the goalposts.
-
Yes, I remember you blaming others when you made a power grab. It's human nature. Pretty much how I thought it would have played out.
What isn't clear about you allowing scrap to make a sock when he was an admin. Why didn't you address this at that time. Why now?
Because of he timing and scraps assertion that you only banned it now as a result of a recent butt hurt. Leaves one to wonder. Why now?
However, since you lumped scrap above in your excuse for lack of a democratic process I am led to believe that this wasnt a result of a recent butt hurt, you have an ongoing grudge against him.
Maybe it's time to let go?
No. You hadn't directly answered the question why now? Why now when you knew he created it when he was an admin?
And do you allow admins to bend the rules? Is that standard practice now?
-
And yes, McJ, you do need to back up your words now. Claim something, back it up. Don't move the goalposts.
you don't need to ask scrap to cease and desist because you don't like him?
I'm somewhat appalled that you didn't, but hey I guess that's your prerogative.
-
And yes, McJ, you do need to back up your words now. Claim something, back it up. Don't move the goalposts.
you don't need to ask scrap to cease and desist because you don't like him?
I'm somewhat appalled that you didn't, but hey I guess that's your prerogative.
Where does it say I don't ljke him and why would it matter? I asked him to back up his words and he hasn't. I ask you now and you haven't.
-
Really, I have no investment in this matter. As a matter if fact, scrap told me that it will do no good since you always rationalize your positions and never admit hat perhaps things could have been handled differently.
OK, my views...
Actually, I see that you already know what they are so I don't see the point of repeating them. Thanks for listening--it's clear you did, and I hope I've managed to listen to your arguments as well.
I do apologise for implying that your views were about Richard specifically. Clearly they are not, and you have perfectly valid points. There's a lot to think about. Were Duke to flood the board again, I would probably act differently but I would still stop him because I think the issue of a member being allowed to restrict the freedoms of others is an important one.
Are you sure? Is this a lie from Scrap? Did you question whether he is telling you the truth or did you assume because Odeon is an Admin that he is a bad and corrupt Admin, and that if Scrap is not, then he must be a victim?
-
Yes, I remember you blaming others when you made a power grab. It's human nature. Pretty much how I thought it would have played out.
Apart from me not knowing wtf you are talking about, why would this matter?
What isn't clear about you allowing scrap to make a sock when he was an admin. Why didn't you address this at that time. Why now?
I have stated my reasons for acting now. Do you accuse me of lying?
Because of he timing and scraps assertion that you only banned it now as a result of a recent butt hurt. Leaves one to wonder. Why now?
Again, I have stated my reasons. Do you have proof or are you simply ignoring a tough question to answer and hoping of convincing people with weak conjecture?
However, since you lumped scrap above in your excuse for lack of a democratic process I am led to believe that this wasnt a result of a recent butt hurt, you have an ongoing grudge against him.
Maybe it's time to let go?
Ah. Realising recent butthurt is not enough, implying more is a nice counter attack?
Again, back up your words.
No. You hadn't directly answered the question why now? Why now when you knew he created it when he was an admin?
But I have answered. You just doubt my words.
I'll try to humour you, though. Object if I'm being too obvious.
When he created the sock, he was an admin and I was Dunc's fallback webmaster, I think. I did not make note of everything happening because I did not approve any accounts, the admins did, and so I became aware of the account only some time later. I would have to do some searching to find out when but I don't have any special powers and my guess is that it took me some time.
Remember that I was not in charge of the site, not as an admin and not as a webmaster.
And do you allow admins to bend the rules? Is that standard practice now?
What rules?
You may think I2 is a democracy, with everything voted on, but it's not. Do you remember how that ended? I2 is a site with very few rules, and one where new socks have not been approved for years. It's not a democracy because everything is not voted on.
Yet there are no rules about socks. There never were. If you think I'm wrong, show me the rules. A number of socks were created early on (and I have no idea when yours were created and I can't be arsed to check, but I'm betting early on) but none later. Every single one was created before the direct democracy ended, and none of them was used after it ended.
Back up your words, McJ.
-
To recap.
Thanks swearing ton for the apology from odeon quote. I was unaware that any existed.
Thank you for clarifying, odeon, that you held no influence over site policy when scrap made his sock. Since you clarified that solves two questions.
1. Are admins allowed special privelages?
2. Why didn't you address it at that time?
Both questions are not your responsibility. That wasnt so hard to answer, was it?
Now that you've answered that as well I guess my query about,,, why now?....is also nullified and I ave to take your word for it that it was simple house cleaning and not scraps assertion of butt hurt vengeance.
And it is your prerogative to enforce rules on members. Even if the member is long term and perhaps had a grandfather clause argument.
And the simple fact that he had used this account, to your knowledge and in the same manner before you chose to ban it now as a matter of convenience. Convenience meaning, you were cleaning up, you might as well address this now.
-
Anything is better than Twilight. :P
Oh....
Even Pokemon?
Even Barney the Dinosaur on Pot?
-
Anything is better than Twilight. :P
Oh....
Even Pokemon?
Even Barney the Dinosaur on Pot?
A compelling argument. But Twilight is still current news in my household while Pokemon is not. Yes, Pokemon was a bloody annoyance but nobody in the household needs to catch em all, not now.
Whereas the teen vampires aren't dead just yet.
-
Just spent some time checking the sockpuppet alert group. My recollection is correct. You created your account yourself. The same is true for a majority of the socks--they were created by members who were admins at the time
This is just another bullshit lie from odeon.
I had my sock account LONG before I was an admin.
My sock was approved by site management.
I didn't "get around a sock ban", there was no prohibition on socks at the time.
My account was grandfathered in, it's not my fault those other socks didn't chose to post past a certain date.
Your account was created when you were an admin. Go check.
That's a bullshit lie and you know it.
I'm sitting on the PM's from the admin who approved the account.
It was approved on March 2nd 2007 and I wasn't made admin until July 23rd.
I have the PM from Callaway confirming it.
:police: :police: :police: :police: :police:
Fucking liar!! :hahaha:
-
So this isn't over?
-
So this isn't over?
It's over now.
I've disproven everything odeon has said.
He's the one who can't back his words up, which is why he demands that everyone backs their words up, it's a distraction tactic.
He gaslights people into thinking he's backed up his arguments by shifting the burden of proof as far from himself as he can get.
-
I tried to start a finger bang thread!
-
Interesting.
It would seem that you are right and didn't create the account yourself, then. Not a conscious lie from me, though, but a mistake. I can see why you'd rather call it a lie but that alone does not make it one.
BTW, did Callaway approve the account, and if so, did she know it was a sockpuppet? Why would there be a confirmation from her rather than the standard reply from the site? Post the PM.
And tell me what it changes. Show me the rule I changed, Scrap. We have not approved sockpuppets in a long time and apart from you none in the sockpuppet group has posted since March 2008.
EDIT: I was wrong. None other than you has posted since December 2007.
OTOH, if you plan on taking another three days to reply, don't bother. I'd rather watch paint dry than wait for another post followed by yet another quick exit. Coward. :hahaha:
So this isn't over?
It's over now.
I've disproven everything odeon has said.
He's the one who can't back his words up, which is why he demands that everyone backs their words up, it's a distraction tactic.
He gaslights people into thinking he's backed up his arguments by shifting the burden of proof as far from himself as he can get.
You have yet to answer the original callout. What rule did I change? That's what I asked you to back up. Let's have a look at what you actually said in response:
I take that as a no. So since you've made it clear that you don't feel obligated to debate in good faith, you can go fuck yourself. I'm done interacting with you, period.
Yet here you are. :-*
For the rest of you, to set the record straight, my sock was one of 12 that were part of the same usergroup. 6 other of these socks had multiple posts with the user being active several months after the fact, so it is clear that these were approved sock accounts.
They were approved by someone, just as every other account here, sock or not. None of them posted a lot, most not at all, and none but you after December 2007. That last one was not a sock, though, but shared his IP with another member. /shrugs
Not exactly a huge body of evidence here. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.
Go look them up in the Members lists, they're there.
I did, which is why I noted that several were created by admins. And also how I got the registration of your sockpuppet wrong.
Now at some point or another some kind of prohibition on socks was passed, I wasn't privy to when this happened or how. However, after it was decided by whomever that there were to be no new socks, they did not delete the Sockpuppet Alert! usergroup, nor did they ban the accounts.
Simply because none of them was posting, none was even noticed. The member group had a purpose, which was exactly what the name says. We still have a karma-free group, and there's a World Council group. We haven't deleted those either.
Proof of this is that i was still able to post with my account, and when I did, over the course of several years, site management laughed along with my antics, cheered me on and plussed my karma. There was no if, ands or butts about the fact that site management gave full approval to these authorized socks. They were obviously covered by some kind of grandfather clause.
Fast forward to a couple days ago. Odeon, seeing that I used my sock, decided to take cheap revenge over butthurt from some other thread.
Here's where I'd like to urge you to produce some kind of proof, considering that I have clearly and repeatedly stated why your sock was finally banned.
So being the playground bully type that he is, he took my toy, shoved me to the ground and kicked sand in my face becuase he's just that kind of insecure control freak. What a loser. :hahaha:
So there you have it people, mine was far from being the only sock account floating around and as far as I'm concerned, anyone else here who wants a sock for comedy purposes, should be allowed to do so. :M
No. If you want to troll, do it with your own account. Show some backbone, for once in your life. :chicken:
-
And there you are, lurking as a guest. :santa:
-
Is a guest permitted to read this page?
-
The main event callout is readable by guests, yes. AFAIK, the idea was to have the callout itself take place in a members-only forum.
-
Anything is better than Twilight. :P
Oh....
Even Pokemon?
Even Barney the Dinosaur on Pot?
A compelling argument. But Twilight is still current news in my household while Pokemon is not. Yes, Pokemon was a bloody annoyance but nobody in the household needs to catch em all, not now.
Whereas the teen vampires aren't dead just yet.
I'm surprised that Barney the Dinosaur on Pot, hasn't been reached out yet in UK.... Dear me.... Sheesh!
-
You have yet to answer the original callout. What rule did I change?
Oh, and one more thing. The dormant sockpuppet that came to life to reply to the failtroll is now also banned. I'm sick of that kind of trolling.
I decided to disallow them. Got annoyed. That's why it says "replacement despot" in my profile. :P
"Oceana is at war with Eurasia, it is allies with Eastasia. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia."
"Oceana is at war with Eastasia, it is allies with Eurasia. Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia."
Whatever you say O'Brien, whatever. :wanker:
-
My sincere apologies. I am unaccustomed to your low-intensity arguing so I thought the callout was over. In my defence I'd like to point out that others seem to share my erroneous assumption.
I'll get back to you in a few weeks' time. Perhaps even sooner, given that I do post here every day.
-
As for your banned sock, I suspect either you created it when you were an admin or someone like Cal or Hadron did it for you. Isn't that right, Scwappy?
Big man, pig man, haHA charade you are!! :hahaha:
-
Your butt still hurting, Scrappy?
-
As for your banned sock, I suspect either you created it when you were an admin or someone like Cal or Hadron did it for you. Isn't that right, Scwappy?
Big man, pig man, haHA charade you are!! :hahaha:
Be nice, dammit. >:(
-
As for your banned sock, I suspect either you created it when you were an admin or someone like Cal or Hadron did it for you. Isn't that right, Scwappy?
Big man, pig man, haHA charade you are!! :hahaha:
Be nice, dammit. >:(
Good luck with that. His butt still hurts. A lot.
-
As for your banned sock, I suspect either you created it when you were an admin or someone like Cal or Hadron did it for you. Isn't that right, Scwappy?
Big man, pig man, haHA charade you are!! :hahaha:
Be nice, dammit. >:(
Good luck with that. His butt still hurts. A lot.
:LMAO: that was fail that spun 180° around to become epic win!!
-
As for your banned sock, I suspect either you created it when you were an admin or someone like Cal or Hadron did it for you. Isn't that right, Scwappy?
Big man, pig man, haHA charade you are!! :hahaha:
Be nice, dammit. >:(
Good luck with that. His butt still hurts. A lot.
I take it his butt is red and swollen from all the butthurt? :zoinks:
-
He is trying to be the Troll of the Century.
He desperately wants us to at least humour him, give him the oportunity to be all "thats what YOU said, but what did I say ;D" or whatever sneaky "mindfuck" he thinks he masters.
-
As for your banned sock, I suspect either you created it when you were an admin or someone like Cal or Hadron did it for you. Isn't that right, Scwappy?
Big man, pig man, haHA charade you are!! :hahaha:
Be nice, dammit. >:(
Good luck with that. His butt still hurts. A lot.
I take it his butt is red and swollen from all the butthurt? :zoinks:
He may be able to sit down by now.
-
He is trying to be the Troll of the Century.
He desperately wants us to at least humour him, give him the oportunity to be all "thats what YOU said, but what did I say ;D" or whatever sneaky "mindfuck" he thinks he masters.
I know you are but what am I? :zoinks:
-
As for your banned sock, I suspect either you created it when you were an admin or someone like Cal or Hadron did it for you. Isn't that right, Scwappy?
Big man, pig man, haHA charade you are!! :hahaha:
Be nice, dammit. >:(
Good luck with that. His butt still hurts. A lot.
I take it his butt is red and swollen from all the butthurt? :zoinks:
He may be able to sit down by now.
If he puts some ice on the seat first. :zoinks:
-
As for your banned sock, I suspect either you created it when you were an admin or someone like Cal or Hadron did it for you. Isn't that right, Scwappy?
Big man, pig man, haHA charade you are!! :hahaha:
Be nice, dammit. >:(
Good luck with that. His butt still hurts. A lot.
I take it his butt is red and swollen from all the butthurt? :zoinks:
He may be able to sit down by now.
If he puts some ice on the seat first. :zoinks:
poor seat.
-
As for your banned sock, I suspect either you created it when you were an admin or someone like Cal or Hadron did it for you. Isn't that right, Scwappy?
Big man, pig man, haHA charade you are!! :hahaha:
Be nice, dammit. >:(
Good luck with that. His butt still hurts. A lot.
I take it his butt is red and swollen from all the butthurt? :zoinks:
He may be able to sit down by now.
If he puts some ice on the seat first. :zoinks:
poor seat.
For having ice put on it or for Scrap sitting on it? :apondering:
-
As for your banned sock, I suspect either you created it when you were an admin or someone like Cal or Hadron did it for you. Isn't that right, Scwappy?
Big man, pig man, haHA charade you are!! :hahaha:
Be nice, dammit. >:(
Good luck with that. His butt still hurts. A lot.
I take it his butt is red and swollen from all the butthurt? :zoinks:
He may be able to sit down by now.
If he puts some ice on the seat first. :zoinks:
poor seat.
For having ice put on it or for Scrap sitting on it? :apondering:
yes :zoinks:
-
Never drop an ice cube into a pot of heated oil, whilst standing near to it. :M
-
As for your banned sock, I suspect either you created it when you were an admin or someone like Cal or Hadron did it for you. Isn't that right, Scwappy?
Big man, pig man, haHA charade you are!! :hahaha:
Be nice, dammit. >:(
Good luck with that. His butt still hurts. A lot.
I take it his butt is red and swollen from all the butthurt? :zoinks:
He may be able to sit down by now.
If he puts some ice on the seat first. :zoinks:
poor seat.
For having ice put on it or for Scrap sitting on it? :apondering:
yes :zoinks:
Nostalgia Critic "yes...yes...yes" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNTps-KN098#)
-
Show me the rule I changed to ban your sockpuppet.
I took me a few years to find the evidence, but I found the smoking gun, here's the evidence that you changed the site policy, that was voted on by the WC, to your own policy, made up by just you.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,5093.0.html
Notice how the OP was edited by you and now the link to the site policy on sockpuppets re-directs to the site policy on account deletion??
Should we start calling you Hillary now??
-
A few years? How many hours per day? :zombiefuck:
-
A few years? How many hours per day? :zombiefuck:
I stumbled upon it by accident.
-
I see he is answering callouts in order, just a few years late. I'm next maybe? :hahaha:
-
Show me the rule I changed to ban your sockpuppet.
I took me a few years to find the evidence, but I found the smoking gun, here's the evidence that you changed the site policy, that was voted on by the WC, to your own policy, made up by just you.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,5093.0.html
Notice how the OP was edited by you and now the link to the site policy on sockpuppets re-directs to the site policy on account deletion??
Should we start calling you Hillary now??
:facepalm:
That post used to be stickied, and that's what I edited.
-
I see he is answering callouts in order, just a few years late. I'm next maybe? :hahaha:
He needs to answer my callout before moving on to you. Give it some time. :zoinks:
-
Show me the rule I changed to ban your sockpuppet.
I took me a few years to find the evidence, but I found the smoking gun, here's the evidence that you changed the site policy, that was voted on by the WC, to your own policy, made up by just you.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,5093.0.html
Notice how the OP was edited by you and now the link to the site policy on sockpuppets re-directs to the site policy on account deletion??
Should we start calling you Hillary now??
:facepalm:
That post used to be stickied, and that's what I edited.
Fucking liar!! Look at the timestamps.
Why is this sticky?
At one point, there was a point, but now you make a good point. I un-stickied it.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 08:09:24 AM by odeon »
-
A few years? How many hours per day? :zombiefuck:
I stumbled upon it by accident.
Do you still want a sockpuppet?
-
Show me the rule I changed to ban your sockpuppet.
I took me a few years to find the evidence, but I found the smoking gun, here's the evidence that you changed the site policy, that was voted on by the WC, to your own policy, made up by just you.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,5093.0.html
Notice how the OP was edited by you and now the link to the site policy on sockpuppets re-directs to the site policy on account deletion??
Should we start calling you Hillary now??
:facepalm:
That post used to be stickied, and that's what I edited.
Fucking liar!! Look at the timestamps.
Why is this sticky?
At one point, there was a point, but now you make a good point. I un-stickied it.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 08:09:24 AM by odeon »
Then I stickied it. I have not edited the contents. Why on earth should I?
-
So, all in all, you've revived an old callout that you lost only to lose again. Fucking hell, man, where is your sense of pride?
-
So, all in all, you've revived an old callout that you lost only to lose again. Fucking hell, man, where is your sense of pride?
Stop, or he'll cry again.
We wouldn't want that :zoinks:
-
That post used to be stickied, and that's what I edited.
Fucking liar!! Look at the timestamps.
Why is this sticky?
At one point, there was a point, but now you make a good point. I un-stickied it.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 08:09:24 AM by odeon »
Then I stickied it.
Then the last timestamp should be Callaway's not yours.
I have not edited the contents. Why on earth should I?
Same reason that Hillary does, to cover your tracks.
The link that I posted went to a thread that has been deleted from the site.
-
That post used to be stickied, and that's what I edited.
Fucking liar!! Look at the timestamps.
Why is this sticky?
At one point, there was a point, but now you make a good point. I un-stickied it.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 08:09:24 AM by odeon »
Then I stickied it.
Then the last timestamp should be Callaway's not yours.
I have not edited the contents. Why on earth should I?
Same reason that Hillary does, to cover your tracks.
The link that I posted went to a thread that has been deleted from the site.
Oh my god. He really is going to start crying again.
-
That post used to be stickied, and that's what I edited.
Fucking liar!! Look at the timestamps.
Why is this sticky?
At one point, there was a point, but now you make a good point. I un-stickied it.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 08:09:24 AM by odeon »
Then I stickied it.
Then the last timestamp should be Callaway's not yours.
I have not edited the contents. Why on earth should I?
Same reason that Hillary does, to cover your tracks.
The link that I posted went to a thread that has been deleted from the site.
Not by me. :tinfoil:
-
So, I guess I should expect a reply within the next five years or so? :zoinks:
-
Nice way to dodge the facts.
The timestamp should be Callaway and not you, based on what you said.
-
What *are* the facts, Scrappy?
-
That depends what "is" is.
Your obfuscation proves your mendacity.
-
:facepalm2: :tinfoil:
I repeat: what are the facts? Back up your shit. Or shut up, after admitting you were wrong.
-
I've already stated them, quit fucking around. :finger:
-
I'll help you, then:
There is an edit timestamp on a post, with me having done an edit.
That's it. Now, tell me how you translate this to "odeon edited a link to point at B rather than A".
You're my bitch now. I know, you were MLA's already but we'll just have to share.
-
I'll help you, then:
There is an edit timestamp on a post, with me having done an edit.
That's it. Now, tell me how you translate this to "odeon edited a link to point at B rather than A".
You're my bitch now. I know, you were MLA's already but we'll just have to share.
The last "edit" was done by Callaway which means her timestamp should be there instead of yours, at least according to what you said.
You claimed that unsticking a thread leaves an edit stamp, that was a lie.
Now your story is shifting, you just admitted to editing my post, you're just playing the game of "you can't prove exactly how I altered it".
Fucking mendacious piece of shit!! :finger:
-
Unsticking a thread leaves a timestamp--everything requiring a save does. That's why they are called "edits". Quite simple, really, and something even you should be able to grasp.
While mostly done on the first post (I know I always do that), a sticky/unsticky edit is possible on any post in a thread since the property is actually set on a thread, not on a single post. In other words, if I do a sticky on the first post and Callaway an unsticky on another post in the same thread, my edit timestamp would remain on the first post while hers would be on that other one. I just tested it on my ask away thread, back and forth and on a couple of my own posts, and then on the QnA thread--go have a look.
I can't find a timestamp signed by Callaway anywhere in your old thread, however, which means that she unstickied the thread directly in her reply to MLA and so there wouldn't be an edit timestamp by Callaway, only the timestamp of her original post. Both use the same piece of code but are presented differently, depending on the state of the message itself.
As for your link, it would appear that you don't know how to do that sort of thing either.
Mine is a better explanation than yours because it is rational and explains what happened and how, rather than requiring a tinfoil hat on an idiot to be believed.
Now bend over, bitch.
-
You've not been excused. Don't get me wrong, this is fun and everything, but to revive an old thread to boost your paranoia will get me first dibs. Sorry, MLA.
-
Unsticking a thread leaves a timestamp--everything requiring a save does. That's why they are called "edits". Quite simple, really, and something even you should be able to grasp.
While mostly done on the first post (I know I always do that), a sticky/unsticky edit is possible on any post in a thread since the property is actually set on a thread, not on a single post. In other words, if I do a sticky on the first post and Callaway an unsticky on another post in the same thread, my edit timestamp would remain on the first post while hers would be on that other one. I just tested it on my ask away thread, back and forth and on a couple of my own posts, and then on the QnA thread--go have a look.
I can't find a timestamp signed by Callaway anywhere in your old thread, however, which means that she unstickied the thread directly in her reply to MLA and so there wouldn't be an edit timestamp by Callaway, only the timestamp of her original post. Both use the same piece of code but are presented differently, depending on the state of the message itself.
As for your link, it would appear that you don't know how to do that sort of thing either.
Mine is a better explanation than yours because it is rational and explains what happened and how, rather than requiring a tinfoil hat on an idiot to be believed.
Now bend over, bitch.
Oooh, PLEASE!! You want me to believe that you unstickied and then stickied just for the fuck of it??
odeon, your fingerprints are on the murder weapon, there's a dead body in the trunk of your car and you're telling the cop that you were just out target shooting and you don't know where the body came from. ::)
My link got altered and yours is the edit stamp. It's a pretty airtight case, I'm not buying your attempt at plausible deniability.
I should probably just call you Hillary from now on.
-
Oooh, PLEASE!! You want me to believe that you unstickied and then stickied just for the fuck of it??
Say for the sake of argument you're right. So what? What are you getting at here?
-
Unsticking a thread leaves a timestamp--everything requiring a save does. That's why they are called "edits". Quite simple, really, and something even you should be able to grasp.
While mostly done on the first post (I know I always do that), a sticky/unsticky edit is possible on any post in a thread since the property is actually set on a thread, not on a single post. In other words, if I do a sticky on the first post and Callaway an unsticky on another post in the same thread, my edit timestamp would remain on the first post while hers would be on that other one. I just tested it on my ask away thread, back and forth and on a couple of my own posts, and then on the QnA thread--go have a look.
I can't find a timestamp signed by Callaway anywhere in your old thread, however, which means that she unstickied the thread directly in her reply to MLA and so there wouldn't be an edit timestamp by Callaway, only the timestamp of her original post. Both use the same piece of code but are presented differently, depending on the state of the message itself.
As for your link, it would appear that you don't know how to do that sort of thing either.
Mine is a better explanation than yours because it is rational and explains what happened and how, rather than requiring a tinfoil hat on an idiot to be believed.
Now bend over, bitch.
Oooh, PLEASE!! You want me to believe that you unstickied and then stickied just for the fuck of it??
odeon, your fingerprints are on the murder weapon, there's a dead body in the trunk of your car and you're telling the cop that you were just out target shooting and you don't know where the body came from. ::)
My link got altered and yours is the edit stamp. It's a pretty airtight case, I'm not buying your attempt at plausible deniability.
I should probably just call you Hillary from now on.
Do you have readability issues? It's either sticky or unsticky, and since Callaway did the latter, I did the former.
I'm pretty sure you fucked up the link when writing the post and then, five years later, woke up to the fact and now blame me for your ineptness. I had no reason then and no reason now to alter your link.
Bend over.
-
Oooh, PLEASE!! You want me to believe that you unstickied and then stickied just for the fuck of it??
Say for the sake of argument you're right. So what? What are you getting at here?
He is feeding his paranoia. He thought he had a smoking gun, but what he has is a post he fucked up in the first place but now thinks I did.
-
Do you have readability issues? It's either sticky or unsticky, and since Callaway did the latter, I did the former.
Your story has changed for the 3rd time now. I'm the one who originally stickied it. Still a lie.
I'm pretty sure you fucked up the link when writing the post and then, five years later, woke up to the fact and now blame me for your ineptness. I had no reason then and no reason now to alter your link.
Gaslighting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting)
-
Oooh, PLEASE!! You want me to believe that you unstickied and then stickied just for the fuck of it??
Say for the sake of argument you're right. So what? What are you getting at here?
He is feeding his paranoia. He thought he had a smoking gun, but what he has is a post he fucked up in the first place but now thinks I did.
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14449769_598440707006180_8077564551301884566_n.jpg?oh=e2a575499b3fd76709aa38dc21a767e2&oe=58722D53)
-
Oooh, PLEASE!! You want me to believe that you unstickied and then stickied just for the fuck of it??
Say for the sake of argument you're right. So what? What are you getting at here?
He is feeding his paranoia. He thought he had a smoking gun, but what he has is a post he fucked up in the first place but now thinks I did.
Didn't ask you.
-
Oooh, PLEASE!! You want me to believe that you unstickied and then stickied just for the fuck of it??
Say for the sake of argument you're right. So what? What are you getting at here?
I'm curious too, for the sake of the argument.
-
Do you have readability issues? It's either sticky or unsticky, and since Callaway did the latter, I did the former.
Your story has changed for the 3rd time now. I'm the one who originally stickied it. Still a lie.
I'm pretty sure you fucked up the link when writing the post and then, five years later, woke up to the fact and now blame me for your ineptness. I had no reason then and no reason now to alter your link.
Gaslighting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting)
:facepalm:
I have not edited your link. Do you have issues with reading comprehension in addition to your paranoia?
-
Oooh, PLEASE!! You want me to believe that you unstickied and then stickied just for the fuck of it??
Say for the sake of argument you're right. So what? What are you getting at here?
He is feeding his paranoia. He thought he had a smoking gun, but what he has is a post he fucked up in the first place but now thinks I did.
Didn't ask you.
I don't care.
-
Do you have readability issues? It's either sticky or unsticky, and since Callaway did the latter, I did the former.
Your story has changed for the 3rd time now. I'm the one who originally stickied it. Still a lie.
I'm pretty sure you fucked up the link when writing the post and then, five years later, woke up to the fact and now blame me for your ineptness. I had no reason then and no reason now to alter your link.
Gaslighting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting)
:facepalm:
I have not edited your link. Do you have issues with reading comprehension in addition to your paranoia?
The problem here is that I do understand what you wrote and you have contradicted yourself a few times now.
And this is where we are at. You fingerprints are on the murder weapon, there's a dead body in the trunk of your car and you're giving multiple, contradicting statements to the cops.
You have to admit, this doesn't look good for you, does it??
-
Oooh, PLEASE!! You want me to believe that you unstickied and then stickied just for the fuck of it??
Say for the sake of argument you're right. So what? What are you getting at here?
I'm curious too, for the sake of the argument.
Since it doesn't appear that will happen, am just assuming this is about the sockpuppet. Though that's a completely irreparable issue, so not sure what's the point.
-
Do you have readability issues? It's either sticky or unsticky, and since Callaway did the latter, I did the former.
Your story has changed for the 3rd time now. I'm the one who originally stickied it. Still a lie.
I'm pretty sure you fucked up the link when writing the post and then, five years later, woke up to the fact and now blame me for your ineptness. I had no reason then and no reason now to alter your link.
Gaslighting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting)
:facepalm:
I have not edited your link. Do you have issues with reading comprehension in addition to your paranoia?
The problem here is that I do understand what you wrote and you have contradicted yourself a few times now.
And this is where we are at. You fingerprints are on the murder weapon, there's a dead body in the trunk of your car and you're giving multiple, contradicting statements to the cops.
You have to admit, this doesn't look good for you, does it??
First you'd have to prove there is a dead body, which you haven't. This is your one-man witch hunt and it's all in your mind. I have given you the reasons there might be for touching your post; I don't remember which one it was but I do know it wasn't editing your link. I have no reason whatsoever to edit the link and you know this.
I think there are several possibilities here but you fucking it up is the obvious one. The link never pointed to the right place and you never stickied the post. End of.
See, if it had been important to me to get rid of your link, I would have deleted the whole thing. It wasn't, though, and it still isn't. What you did then and what you do now is of very little consequence to me, and frankly to anyone else. Even Al, even though he is positively drooling. It's not you, it's that somebody is accusing me of something. That's what he gets off on. And he claims he is indifferent.
You're both kind of sad.
-
I have no reason whatsoever to edit the link and you know this.
No, your Jihad against sock accounts back then is plenty of motive.
. The link never pointed to the right place and you never stickied the post. End of.
In other words, you're sticking to your lie. Not only did I originally sticky this, I stickied this one too. (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,5080.0.html) They were done at the same time to document the rules of the WC. The second thread failed, which was a shame because it would've contained Calandale's antics.
See, if it had been important to me to get rid of your link, I would have deleted the whole thing.
No, that's not how people like you operate. You're more passive-aggressive than that.
-
My jihad?!? :rofl:
I think you are lying about stickying the threads. You are the passive-aggressive one, always fearful to confront anyone directly. Remember how you left this place a few years ago, telling people how you didn't feel safe here? Well, that's still you, hiding, frequently taking years to reply while digging up threads from ten years ago and accusing me of editing your link because you know full well that there is no way to prove anything.
I guess you simply felt a bit safer considering how Al, the bigot of the aspie elite, will drool at the mere thought of somebody attacking me.
It's the kind of passive-aggressiveness that made you edit your quote.
Fucking coward.
-
And as long as we are talking about your passive-aggressiveness, let's have a look at your current account. It's one of your socks, remember, originally called DefinatelynotSH, and speaks volumes about what you really are.
A coward.
-
Yeah, you have to go to the name calling when you've lost the argument. :hahaha:
-
Yeah, you have to go to the name calling when you've lost the argument. :hahaha:
Quote from: odious on 06 October 2016, 00:13:34
Pathetic coward.
-
Rapist.
-
Glad we all agree you lost.
-
Who is this "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Actually you have proven my original point, that you took it upon yourself to change the rules as you see fit, based upon your mood at any given moment.
-
It doesn't add up and you ranting on about what you believe rather than what evidence you have won't magically make any of it true.