You have found INTENSITY², the autistic spectrum site everyone loves to hate.
We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.
As such this site is not suitable for children. If you are under 18 please come back when you aren't any more.
If you are over 18 and have the bottle for it,
Thought the forum might have one tiny chance of surviving this whole shitstorm.
The one chance being Odeon leaving and Py taking over the place. Note, Odeon leaving, not you.
But again the whole community gets told that they are doing it wrong, not condemning Odeon hard enough. Py gets classified as the Pikajedi of Any Nelson. The woman tries so fucking hard, within the space she has, she does not deserve that verdict.
The shitstorm will not stop apparently. Now I think it will also not stop if Py takes over. Too much bad blood, disgust, hatred and disgust. Why would it stop, if you already labeled her that way? You are tenacious, after all, and can hold a grudge better than most.
Most active members of the forum are very well aware that it is a two way thing between you and Odeon. Most active members are well aware that those mod tools have been used in a nasty way against you.
Most active members of the forum have been aware that you have been demanding the wrath of the community as a verdict on the thing between you and Odeon . You've been asking for that for about two years now.
Could be the wrath of the community is that they are fucking bored with it all. The wrath did not hit any of the two of you.
At this moment I think the best advocate Odeon has on I2 is you. You lash out to a lot of members and keep on doing that. Because they are not condemning Odeon hard enough. The moment Odeon drops that he resisted pulling the plug, you depict the community pandering him. The only thing I saw is Jack asking and Py offering to take over.
Py has now been labelled as not to trust by you. She is to Odeon what Pikajedi was to Amy Nelson.
The community is gullible and stupid and pandering Odeon in your vision.
You state there are dishonest folk like Walkie, so there are more in your view.
You are full on steam and will not stop.
Chance of I2 surviving is getting closer and closer to zero, I think.
In a few days I may even be relieved if it would lead to closing the place down.
Damn, I said I would give my two cents to charity, apparently I still had something in the seams of my pockets.
Thought the forum might have one tiny chance of surviving this whole shitstorm.
The one chance being Odeon leaving and Py taking over the place. Note, Odeon leaving, not you.
But again the whole community gets told that they are doing it wrong, not condemning Odeon hard enough. Py gets classified as the Pikajedi of Any Nelson. The woman tries so fucking hard, within the space she has, she does not deserve that verdict.
The shitstorm will not stop apparently. Now I think it will also not stop if Py takes over. Too much bad blood, disgust, hatred and disgust. Why would it stop, if you already labeled her that way? You are tenacious, after all, and can hold a grudge better than most.
Most active members of the forum are very well aware that it is a two way thing between you and Odeon. Most active members are well aware that those mod tools have been used in a nasty way against you.
Most active members of the forum have been aware that you have been demanding the wrath of the community as a verdict on the thing between you and Odeon . You've been asking for that for about two years now.
Could be the wrath of the community is that they are fucking bored with it all. The wrath did not hit any of the two of you.
At this moment I think the best advocate Odeon has on I2 is you. You lash out to a lot of members and keep on doing that. Because they are not condemning Odeon hard enough. The moment Odeon drops that he resisted pulling the plug, you depict the community pandering him. The only thing I saw is Jack asking and Py offering to take over.
Py has now been labelled as not to trust by you. She is to Odeon what Pikajedi was to Amy Nelson.
The community is gullible and stupid and pandering Odeon in your vision.
You state there are dishonest folk like Walkie, so there are more in your view.
You are full on steam and will not stop.
Chance of I2 surviving is getting closer and closer to zero, I think.
In a few days I may even be relieved if it would lead to closing the place down.
Damn, I said I would give my two cents to charity, apparently I still had something in the seams of my pockets.
Question:
Is there still someone you do trust on this place?
No sarcasm in that question. Not taking the oiss either.
Sick of the endless drama and sick of your long winded dysfunctional narratives.
You.
Sick.
Fuck.
Do you really want to know why I side with odeon?
Because you are the biggest whiny butthurt little man baby I've ever encountered.
You littered this forum with your endless circle jerk essays every fucking week for the last year or so...and then when you don't get the attention you feel you deserve you call in your flying monkey squad to join forces with you on your hateful agenda.
I have other places to go.
Go pound salt up your ass.
It was fun while it lasted.
C'est la vie
Don't take the bait, Hyke...
If the dynamics of this moment are looking a lot like AFF (and I wouldn't know personally, since I wasn't there) then that's a pattern that needs to be broken, and to be broken it needs to be understood.
So if there are differences between that situation and this one, I'd love to hear them.
If there are more details about what happened then and why, that's useful info too.
Sick of the endless drama and sick of your long winded dysfunctional narratives.
You.
Sick.
Fuck.
Do you really want to know why I side with odeon?
Because you are the biggest whiny butthurt little man baby I've ever encountered.
You littered this forum with your endless circle jerk essays every fucking week for the last year or so...and then when you don't get the attention you feel you deserve you call in your flying monkey squad to join forces with you on your hateful agenda.
I have other places to go.
Go pound salt up your ass.
It was fun while it lasted.
C'est la vie
Sick of the endless drama and sick of your long winded dysfunctional narratives.
You.
Sick.
Fuck.
Do you really want to know why I side with odeon?
Because you are the biggest whiny butthurt little man baby I've ever encountered.
You littered this forum with your endless circle jerk essays every fucking week for the last year or so...and then when you don't get the attention you feel you deserve you call in your flying monkey squad to join forces with you on your hateful agenda.
I have other places to go.
Go pound salt up your ass.
It was fun while it lasted.
C'est la vie
Don't go. This is precisely what the playground bully wants you to do.
Al, I will admit and shout from the rooftop that I have not read all (or even close to a minimum) of the differences between you and odeon and other members. But I do sense that you don't have many members who agree with you. **
You've explained your position, points, differences numerous times. And I haven't noticed any appreciable acknowledgement by whoever you have probems (?) with that they are willing to say you are correct. Isn't one cliche of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?
Maybe it's time to just say you fought a strong, long hard battle, but it's time to put away disagreements.
** Shit, trying to choose my words properly and I forgot where I was going with this. So I guess I'll change directions.
You have found INTENSITY², the autistic spectrum site everyone loves to hate.
We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.
As such this site is not suitable for children. If you are under 18 please come back when you aren't any more.
If you are over 18 and have the bottle for it,
I do believe that "we ladies" are siding with Odeon, (if you must call it that. Though I would strongly disagree if I had the energy) because we can imagine how it would feel to be the owner/Admin and have one's ankles gnawed at every time one logs on. That would be a whole lot worse than is is for we ordinary members , who can just go off and do something else, when sick to the teeth of it. Whatever we might think of Odeon's behaviour, I guess we all believe that punishment is way in excess of the crime. And what's more, we have a lot of affection for I2, a lot of investment in this board, and we woul;d very much like the place to survive.
You've actually got the gist of it. People leave because of you. You're like a schoolyard bully on steroids.
But here's what's going to happen. Either you stop or I make you stop. Hyke mentioned that I'm not going to ban you but she was wrong. I've spent a couple of days on and off to think about all this and that just didn't seem right to me. I can ban you and I will ban you, if you don't stop this. I had my share of schoolyard bullies--many of us did--but that's all in the past. FourAce is absolutely right.
Your choice.
Funny that you'd think our conducts were similar. They are not. You bully anyone daring to question you, endlessly, post after post, and you don't let go. You wear them down and eventually they think 'fuck this' and leave.
Bullying's got nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech or the free expression of ideas, and not tolerating it does not equal "not having the bottle for this place". Stop excusing your behaviour with what it says on the cover.
As I said, your choice, but this ends now.
You have found INTENSITY², the autistic spectrum site everyone loves to hate.
We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.
As such this site is not suitable for children. If you are under 18 please come back when you aren't any more.
If you are over 18 and have the bottle for it,
We believe in the right to speak freely.
We believe that People with AS have not been allowed to speak freely. And that society has been a bully which has forced their silence. as a result people with AS seem to be a little on the ultra sensitive side. We would like to give voice to People with AS, since the silence has been enforced by society for far to long.
intensity? is a place where freedom reigns supreme in the marketplace of ideas. we encourage everybody to speak so that together we may form a collage of ideas and work out the truths as percieved by the AS Community. Then we plan on taking those truths and become advocates for them. and we will stand together and be counted, and we will speak up.
The price of speech is not free. Each person will be held accountable for their words and challenged by the Community. The off chance that you might be embarrassed for what you say, is the price of free speech. People have no right to censor what another thinks, and abolish them before they get the right to speak. that is what we have battled our entire lives and its over.
we demand the right here. and we make use of that right. right or wrong, you will not be silenced by those who wish to keep you from being counted.
we are not disabled by AS, we are challenged. and we challenge you, to help us overcome those hurdles, and challenge us.
to be continued...
we encourage
*flaming
*name calling
*trolling
*free thought
*outside the box thinking
*the sophist method of debate
*search for truth
*and the right to speak, and keep speaking, and again, and as many times as necessary, until all parties are satisfied.
-intensity? community
Al, no I actually meant all the above-stated opions. Think what you like, but I don't intend to engage in an argument about whether I meant what I said, and interrogation as to why would I say it, given that i really think something else? As I have said before, I 've had more than enough of people insisisting that they know my mind better than I do, and pressing me into agreeing with their version of the " truth" I had that all the fucking time when I was a kid . I am not willing to take it from anyone now, least of all a fellow Aspie, who ought to damn well know better.
We believe in the right to speak freely.
We believe that People with AS have not been allowed to speak freely. And that society has been a bully which has forced their silence. as a result people with AS seem to be a little on the ultra sensitive side. We would like to give voice to People with AS, since the silence has been enforced by society for far to long.
intensity? is a place where freedom reigns supreme in the marketplace of ideas. we encourage everybody to speak so that together we may form a collage of ideas and work out the truths as percieved by the AS Community. Then we plan on taking those truths and become advocates for them. and we will stand together and be counted, and we will speak up.
The price of speech is not free. Each person will be held accountable for their words and challenged by the Community. The off chance that you might be embarrassed for what you say, is the price of free speech. People have no right to censor what another thinks, and abolish them before they get the right to speak. that is what we have battled our entire lives and its over.
we demand the right here. and we make use of that right. right or wrong, you will not be silenced by those who wish to keep you from being counted.
we are not disabled by AS, we are challenged. and we challenge you, to help us overcome those hurdles, and challenge us
In view of that, I have one last practical suggestion to make: that Pyraxis take over control of the site, on a tempoary basis, until either these problems with Al are resolved one wayor another, or else she gives up on trying to resolve them . It seems we pretty much all have confidence in Pyraxis, and any judgement she might make, even if harsh, would leave a better taste in the mouth. I, for one, don't want to see Odeon in the position of having to actually ban Al. I think that would leave a bad taste in everybody's mouth (Odeon included) and we;'d never hear the end of the repercussions. Ofc, that could also result in Odeon being banned, sinbinned or what-have-you. Hmm. Well that could be a laugh. I hope Odeon is willing to take that risk?
I'm not interested in you defending your bullying with what McJ came up in 2006 or what Dunc wrote on our cover page (I think it was Dunc, anyway), I simply want it to stop. If I have to ban you to make it stop, I will. And honestly, I won't feel particularly bad about doing so.
In view of that, I have one last practical suggestion to make: that Pyraxis take over control of the site, on a tempoary basis, until either these problems with Al are resolved one wayor another, or else she gives up on trying to resolve them . It seems we pretty much all have confidence in Pyraxis, and any judgement she might make, even if harsh, would leave a better taste in the mouth. I, for one, don't want to see Odeon in the position of having to actually ban Al. I think that would leave a bad taste in everybody's mouth (Odeon included) and we;'d never hear the end of the repercussions. Ofc, that could also result in Odeon being banned, sinbinned or what-have-you. Hmm. Well that could be a laugh. I hope Odeon is willing to take that risk?
I very much doubt it would make any difference to hand over control to Py, and I'm not interested in doing so. I'm NOT about to be driven away by a bully. Besides, trying to resolve anything with Al is utterly pointless. What makes you think it would work this time when all past attempts, including your own, failed? No, he will simply have to back down or face a ban, and I have no problems with living with that decision.
Anyway, in general, it's really not a good idea for a moderator or Admin to be the one to discipline a member he has a personal bitch with, because mods are just human beings, like the rest of us, and we can't really expect a god-like detachment from them. If an alterative (non-involved) Mod is available, that alternative should step in instead.That's a great suggestion. Disagree with the idea of Odeon giving up the forum over this if he doesn't wan to, but letting someone else make the decisions in his own personal arguments is an idea worth consideration.
Py, I see much of Odeon's ultimatums as akin to chest-thumping. I know this is supposed to be the bit where I genuflect to Odeon or something. But I will quarantine my snark and what not to this thread for as long as others want to have a go. I am happy as I say to do what I was doing 2015. I will not seek Odeon out for argument or endorsement.
I have said a few times that I do not expect he will keep a truce but I will do my bit to make it easy for him to do so. It will not take much to spoil that nor to keep it. But I expect Odeon will choose the former.
That is my commitment and on record. You can hold me to that. I know you are making an effort and I am not that unreasonable not to try too.
In view of that, I have one last practical suggestion to make: that Pyraxis take over control of the site, on a tempoary basis, until either these problems with Al are resolved one wayor another, or else she gives up on trying to resolve them . It seems we pretty much all have confidence in Pyraxis, and any judgement she might make, even if harsh, would leave a better taste in the mouth. I, for one, don't want to see Odeon in the position of having to actually ban Al. I think that would leave a bad taste in everybody's mouth (Odeon included) and we;'d never hear the end of the repercussions. Ofc, that could also result in Odeon being banned, sinbinned or what-have-you. Hmm. Well that could be a laugh. I hope Odeon is willing to take that risk?
I very much doubt it would make any difference to hand over control to Py, and I'm not interested in doing so. I'm NOT about to be driven away by a bully. Besides, trying to resolve anything with Al is utterly pointless. What makes you think it would work this time when all past attempts, including your own, failed? No, he will simply have to back down or face a ban, and I have no problems with living with that decision.
I'm sorry you're not intersted in trying the experiment :( . To answer your question: as you can't help but know, Al has repeatedly complained that you're exploiting an unfair advantage that you happen to have, by using your moderation tools on him when you're losing a fight with him. No use arguing with that, it's a matter of opinion, can't be proved either way.
If Py took over the reins, that would, for the first time ever, put the pair of you on a completely level playing field wouldn't it? I don't know, but I think that could make a huge difference between the pair of you. Worth a shot.
Anyway, in general, it's really not a good idea for a moderator or Admin to be the one to discipline a member he has a personal bitch with, because mods are just human beings, like the rest of us, and we can't really expect a god-like detachment from them. If an alterative (non-involved) Mod is available, that alternative should step in instead.
Incidentally, I once said that on another forum , after the resident Narcissicist abruptly banned his worst enemy whilst all the other mods were sleeping I said: "He should have stepped back and let somebody else make that decision" giving same rationale I stated above. Next thing , the guy jumped on me , and threatened to ban me for having the cheek to question his judgement *chuckle* . The other Mods restrained him, though.
Nah, I don't think you're anywhere near that bad, Odeon, I really don't. but some people round here seem have no idea what a real Forum Tyrant is like, and they're saying you're that bad, aren't they? *sigh*. So proving them wrong also looks like a pretty good idea to me. Futile perhaps, but an added bonus.
Anyway, I believe that people would respect you all the more for it. And I'm pretty damned sure that Pyraxis would look after the place well, and return the keys promptly, when asked.
Anyway, in general, it's really not a good idea for a moderator or Admin to be the one to discipline a member he has a personal bitch with, because mods are just human beings, like the rest of us, and we can't really expect a god-like detachment from them. If an alterative (non-involved) Mod is available, that alternative should step in instead.That's a great suggestion. Disagree with the idea of Odeon giving up the forum over this if he doesn't wan to, but letting someone else make the decisions in his own personal arguments is an idea worth consideration.
Okay.Anyway, in general, it's really not a good idea for a moderator or Admin to be the one to discipline a member he has a personal bitch with, because mods are just human beings, like the rest of us, and we can't really expect a god-like detachment from them. If an alterative (non-involved) Mod is available, that alternative should step in instead.That's a great suggestion. Disagree with the idea of Odeon giving up the forum over this if he doesn't wan to, but letting someone else make the decisions in his own personal arguments is an idea worth consideration.
No.
It's all about free will in the end.
And no, Py, I'm not seeking your approval, I'm not seeking anyone's.
Al was instrumental in bringing down one board.
And no, Py, I'm not seeking your approval, I'm not seeking anyone's.
Did I imply you were?Al was instrumental in bringing down one board.
Say what? Which board are you referring to, and what happened?
Oh! thanks for the history, Al. But if Odeon means AFF, that's the first i ever heard of anybody blaming you for that, and the nth time I've heard it was all Amy's fault :S. So I'm still perplexed about this .
Who the heck is Minister of silly walks?
Oh! thanks for the history, Al. But if Odeon means AFF, that's the first i ever heard of anybody blaming you for that, and the nth time I've heard it was all Amy's fault :S. So I'm still perplexed about this .
Who the heck is Minister of silly walks?
And no, Py, I'm not seeking your approval, I'm not seeking anyone's.
Did I imply you were?
Al was instrumental in bringing down one board.
Say what? Which board are you referring to, and what happened?
And no, Py, I'm not seeking your approval, I'm not seeking anyone's.
Did I imply you were?
I thought you were but it could be my mistake. Sorry, if so.QuoteAl was instrumental in bringing down one board.
Say what? Which board are you referring to, and what happened?
AFF, based on what I've been told.
Al, the fact is that I have been told exactly that. Calling me a liar won't change it in the slightest.
Aspiesforfreedom. Brought down by Al's vendetta against the founders/admins of that site.
Dunno about anyone else but I'm glad to hear Odeon saying he's not going to pull an Amy Nelson...
Dunno about anyone else but I'm glad to hear Odeon saying he's not going to pull an Amy Nelson...
Meh. That prolly just means he has better taste in women than Gareth has :LOL:
Um. Couldn't resist that. Yeah, I'm surely very glad about it :)
Dunno about anyone else but I'm glad to hear Odeon saying he's not going to pull an Amy Nelson...
Meh. That prolly just means he has better taste in women than Gareth has :LOL:
Um. Couldn't resist that. Yeah, I'm surely very glad about it :)
Maybe I'm jumping to silly conclusions, but I assume it was Minister of silly walks who told Odeon the other version, Al. Looks like a no-brainer to me. Or am I missing something?
Aspiesforfreedom. Brought down by Al's vendetta against the founders/admins of that site.
:apondering: Ofc. could be that third , unknown party told both Odeon and MoSW same story. In any case , I see no reason to suppose that Odeon just made the story up. Looks to me like he all-too-cleary believes it. Confirmation bias , maybe?
In any case , it only takes one person to start a rumour. You can' reasonably nor realistically accuse everybody who believes it of dishonesty. If somebody trust their source, they will swallow it all-to-often . Happens all the time,.
Yeah... one likely highly biased account vs a one-line accusation. Have to read between the lines to see how close the parallels would be. The threads do provide more insight.
Dunno about anyone else but I'm glad to hear Odeon saying he's not going to pull an Amy Nelson... especially if that means not closing the site down unexpectedly without enough explanation.
:lol1: Hiding behind the error message I got when I tried to take a backup of this place.
Obviously I don't *know* why AFF closed down.
Obviously I don't *know* why AFF closed down.
Then why are you trying to claim otherwise??
You're just doing what you do best, talking out of both sides of your mouth.
This is just the latest example of you doing this, I've spotted it on numerous occasions.
I've got your bag of tricks fairly well figured out at this point.
Maybe I'm jumping to silly conclusions, but I assume it was Minister of silly walks who told Odeon the other version, Al. Looks like a no-brainer to me. Or am I missing something?
Aspiesforfreedom. Brought down by Al's vendetta against the founders/admins of that site.
:apondering: Ofc. could be that third , unknown party told both Odeon and MoSW same story. In any case , I see no reason to suppose that Odeon just made the story up. Looks to me like he all-too-cleary believes it. Confirmation bias , maybe?
In any case , it only takes one person to start a rumour. You can' reasonably nor realistically accuse everybody who believes it of dishonesty. If somebody trust their source, they will swallow it all-to-often . Happens all the time,.
In other words, you don't know my sources or what I'm basing my stance on but think I'm wrong nevertheless?
I find what I've heard credible because I've heard it from several sources, but also because I've seen first hand what Al does here. Obviously I don't *know* why AFF closed down but neither does anyone else other than Amy Nelson.
I'd like to close this with my favourite SNL quote: Before criticising someone you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticise them you'll be a mile away and have their shoes.
Obviously I don't *know* why AFF closed down.
Then why are you trying to claim otherwise??
You're just doing what you do best, talking out of both sides of your mouth.
This is just the latest example of you doing this, I've spotted it on numerous occasions.
I've got your bag of tricks fairly well figured out at this point.
Because I happen to believe that what I heard is credible and, if true, affects us directly. But then, you knew that.
I'll now look forward to you staying silent unless you know for a fact that what you're posting is true. In your case, this should be pretty much all the time.
Obviously I don't *know* why AFF closed down.
Then why are you trying to claim otherwise??
You're just doing what you do best, talking out of both sides of your mouth.
This is just the latest example of you doing this, I've spotted it on numerous occasions.
I've got your bag of tricks fairly well figured out at this point.
Because I happen to believe that what I heard is credible and, if true, affects us directly. But then, you knew that.
I'll now look forward to you staying silent unless you know for a fact that what you're posting is true. In your case, this should be pretty much all the time.
What's this about imaginary sources? It's clear Ministry of silly walks is one source, and as far as I know :tinfoil: they are neither Gareth nor Amy. The threads point out a bunch of other people who have their own takes on what happened and how it affects them. So why insist that ALL agree with you in full?
What's this about imaginary sources? It's clear Ministry of silly walks is one source, and as far as I know :tinfoil: they are neither Gareth nor Amy. The threads point out a bunch of other people who have their own takes on what happened and how it affects them. So why insist that ALL agree with you in full?
I'd like to close this with my favourite SNL quote: Before criticising someone you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticise them you'll be a mile away and have their shoes.
What's this about imaginary sources? It's clear Ministry of silly walks is one source, and as far as I know :tinfoil: they are neither Gareth nor Amy. The threads point out a bunch of other people who have their own takes on what happened and how it affects them. So why insist that ALL agree with you in full?
People are entitled to their own opinions, just not their own facts.
What's this about imaginary sources? It's clear Ministry of silly walks is one source, and as far as I know :tinfoil: they are neither Gareth nor Amy. The threads point out a bunch of other people who have their own takes on what happened and how it affects them. So why insist that ALL agree with you in full?
People are entitled to their own opinions, just not their own facts.
That was kind of my point. :LOL: Or am I misunderstanding you here?
If you actually believed it, I don't think it would be dishonest.
That said, I don't need you to explain Odeon to me, I can form my own opinions. :sleepy:
What's this about imaginary sources? It's clear Ministry of silly walks is one source, and as far as I know :tinfoil: they are neither Gareth nor Amy. The threads point out a bunch of other people who have their own takes on what happened and how it affects them. So why insist that ALL agree with you in full?
People are entitled to their own opinions, just not their own facts.
Maybe I'm jumping to silly conclusions, but I assume it was Minister of silly walks who told Odeon the other version, Al. Looks like a no-brainer to me. Or am I missing something?
Aspiesforfreedom. Brought down by Al's vendetta against the founders/admins of that site.
:apondering: Ofc. could be that third , unknown party told both Odeon and MoSW same story. In any case , I see no reason to suppose that Odeon just made the story up. Looks to me like he all-too-cleary believes it. Confirmation bias , maybe?
In any case , it only takes one person to start a rumour. You can' reasonably nor realistically accuse everybody who believes it of dishonesty. If somebody trust their source, they will swallow it all-to-often . Happens all the time,.
In other words, you don't know my sources or what I'm basing my stance on but think I'm wrong nevertheless?
I find what I've heard credible because I've heard it from several sources, but also because I've seen first hand what Al does here. Obviously I don't *know* why AFF closed down but neither does anyone else other than Amy Nelson.
I'd like to close this with my favourite SNL quote: Before criticising someone you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticise them you'll be a mile away and have their shoes.
I doubt it. Again, directly after the event two tbreads and many members fro mm there posting here and not the general consensus but the entire discourse is one way traffic. They ALL agree with my description of what went down.
Credibility backs that given the cliseness to t gyme event, people involved and the shared perspective by so many.
Then we have you, running in complete contradiction to this with imaginary sources.
It makes you look like a liar or a misled fool willing to state lies as fact when he want to spread smear and propaganda.
Slimy
What's this about imaginary sources? It's clear Ministry of silly walks is one source, and as far as I know :tinfoil: they are neither Gareth nor Amy. The threads point out a bunch of other people who have their own takes on what happened and how it affects them. So why insist that ALL agree with you in full?
As I say, facts do not picks sides. Sometimes saying that something is your opinion doesn't imbue it with any more truth.
For example, I do not like Odeon and I do not like the increase in moderation creep on I2. HOWEVER, if I start putting it around that I2 is now the most moderated forum in Autism spaces, this would be untrue and hearing it from others doesn't make it more true. I may have reason to say so and acknowledge the level of moderation as a problem but that is not the same as making the allegation or even the inference. Disliking Odeon does not make it more true nor make it more likely that I am more likely to believe dishonesty.
That is Odeon now. Amy was responsible for Amy's actions on AFF. AFF getting closed down was due to her reactive volitile and authoritarian behaviour. Nothing more nothing left.
The fact too is I was already gone when she spat the dummy because people quwstioned why I was gone and wanted me back. She did not like that. The vendetta, bullying and casual narrative falls rather flat
If you actually believed it, I don't think it would be dishonest.
That said, I don't need you to explain Odeon to me, I can form my own opinions. :sleepy:
I dont need to. Just replying. Sharing perspectives.
I think he is peddling dishonesty as fact-based claims and when called on it, is faking ignorance.
I think its slimy
I find it highly credible that your behaviour was instrumental in the closing of AFF it and my sources back it up. I can't verify it, but then, neither can you. Facts do pick sides, in this case. They are with Amy.
Oh, and I don't much care for Al's 'historical truth', considering his behaviour and revisionism here.
You're being staggeringly dishonest. Is this your guilt speaking?
Yes, it is a little historical revisionism. But let's spell it out. I CAN confirm this all in another two threads on here.
Many years ago on AFF Amy and Gareth got busy in real life stuff and left the forum. They left the place to the rest of us on the forum. The mods like Evil Zakkie and our beloved CBC had limited powers and were not Admins. They could not ban but as I remember could delete and edit posts.
There were a few people who generally countered trolls and people that would seek to harm the people or culture there whilst the Admins were asleep at the wheel. Max the Bear was one and so was yours truly.
The forum built up and went from strength to strength over the next couple of years it became a hub of activism and support and had a layered culture. Sounds great right?
Then Amy and Gareth barged in and Amy insinuated herself in the thick of things and start pushing her odious personality on things. She insulted people and what they were up to and told us what to stop and what to concentrate on and had no clue who was who and what. She started barking orders and giving warnings. The people revolted.
Some organised very indirect protests such as logging off for a day or so and some changed their avatar to one with a gag on it. (We are looking at about 50 members to give you an indication of the size of this). I was asked but decided to do what I normally do and go to the source and did. I went in hard on her for all the shit she was causing.
She banned me and about 7 others and that 50 left. Then she went through and "sanitised the board" and edited it and for her coup de grace she publicly blamed me for organising the protests.
One banned member came back onto the board soon afterwards and through no little work and generousity of spirit graduated his standing. He became an Admin and was well regarded by Gareth. Amy treated him in general with disdain and sometimes actively worked against him. The work Pikajedi did on the forum was solid and his ability to dance and sidestep around Amy's bullshit was masterful.
He recognised pretty quickly who I was when I came back and realising too that it was bullshit for me getting shitcanned, allowed me on as he had been allowed on by Gareth.
Amy had been off and Pikajedi was mainly running the show and with Gareth piping in occasionally. Amy did frequent the chat but was not that interested interacting. Things were pretty okay. The once great AFF had never really recovered from the heights of maybe 60-65 active and contributing members before the purge, but it had built up a little and such.
Then in comes Amy. She starts throwing her weight around and doing the same sort of shit she did years before. Most people (unlike previously) were cowed, I was not. I pointed out every instance of her stupidity and dishonesty and why it was so. She did not like that. She banned me.
The next day everyone revolted and asked why she banned me and demanded me back. She threw a hissy fit and closed the forum.
THAT is the historical truth behind it and it is evidenced on here.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,19145.0.html
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,21384.0.html
Some people didn't come back, a lot did. Me and Amy were busy (with what doesn't matter - the time when AFF was our only big purpose in life is passed for better or worse), we came back and Amy was made to feel a little like maria and altair returning to masyaf (yeah, i'm still addicted to Assassins Creed - long story short, they leave the assassin order after leaving it in good hands, they return to find it a shadow of its former self with no training happening and themselves very unwelcome, they get chased back out again only to return later after killing the new leader).
It was perhaps a rewrite - we got rid of a lot of posts which caused nothing but conflict.
Think about the greater purpose and goals of AFF - they're hopeless if we dwell on old ingroup conflicts and drama - getting rid of those old posts allowed things to move on a bit.
Food for thought:
Right now AFF is in the middle of another extended period free of the presence of myself and Amy (I only just made a few posts there in the past few days after a long period of absence). If AFF is currently off-track, it is not due to my own or Amy's bad leadership leading it down the wrong path - at present we're leading it nowhere and trusting the community to lead itself.
QuoteOf the activists that you had you were basically left with two. Skyblue and KenG.Indeed
Of the other active posters, Guess Who, Alison, Marcia, Windy....who else? 40 others which generated a lot of posts and interaction simply disappeared all within a week. Not really one of your better moments, huh?
Furthermore if you DID want to know who was organising all of this it would really come down to two people (if not me) wouldn't it? Think back on who were two of the biggest personalities there at the time. It will be one or the other. It simply was not me.
Al is Bloke is Rossco.
He was not a ringleader of the "main" protests, he was off doing his own thing - directly to what was viewed as the root of the problem, to talk it out. Yes, Rossco is blunt, he is direct, he doesn't pull his punches - hell, sometimes he's downright rude; But he's not a weasel. If he's ever going to stab you in the back it'll be to your face, to steal from Firefly.
I'll tell you straight up who the main shitstirrer was - Max the Bear.
This is why I didn't ban Bloke when I knew full well he was Rossco; His ban, like my own, Bardwolfs and a few others, were completely unfair and kneejerk - and in the case of Bardwolf and at least one other, I've undone them.
Max the Bear can eat shit, though.
*Edit*
Also, can we move this somewhere Guests can't see it
Furthermore if you DID want to know who was organising all of this it would really come down to two people (if not me) wouldn't it? Think back on who were two of the biggest personalities there at the time. It will be one or the other. It simply was not me.
Al is Bloke is Rossco.
He was not a ringleader of the "main" protests, he was off doing his own thing - directly to what was viewed as the root of the problem, to talk it out. Yes, Rossco is blunt, he is direct, he doesn't pull his punches - hell, sometimes he's downright rude; But he's not a weasel. If he's ever going to stab you in the back it'll be to your face, to steal from Firefly.
I'll tell you straight up who the main shitstirrer was - Max the Bear.
This is why I didn't ban Bloke when I knew full well he was Rossco; His ban, like my own, Bardwolfs and a few others, were completely unfair and kneejerk - and in the case of Bardwolf and at least one other, I've undone them.
Max the Bear can eat shit, though.
*Edit*
Also, can we move this somewhere Guests can't see it
Pikajedi said this to me on MSN too, i'm pretty much forced to go along with it at this point.
Update! They have closed the AFF board because a few of us dared to support a banned member. No doubt they are editing our posts to make us look bad. Al is right about double standards.
OMFG
AFF SHUT DOWN...
(either that or I got banned :dunno: )
Why?
BECAUSE MOST EVERYONE WANTS A RETURN OF BLOKE.
I hardly know what is going on.
Apparently Bloke got into a scuffle and Amy banned him, permanently.
Then El-prez started a thread "Bring Bloke Back"....there was shitton of support for bloke- we all love him, minus a few members who remained neutral.
Then that thread got locked.
So I created a thread "BLOKE" to basically continue el-prez's thread since his got locked.
Next thing I know the site is down.
I am disappointed.
By reacting this way instead of engaging Bloke, Bloke comes out on top, especially in light of the fact that he had so much support after the ban. I haven't been there much lately, but I would probably have showed my support as well. I doubt he did anything truly ban-worthy.
By closing the site they are cutting off the only source of meaningful human contact for some. Sure, it is their site, but it means a lot to a lot of people. Some degree of responsibility is taken on because of this whether they like it or not.
After what happened recently with the shuffling if mods/admins this is too much. It was handled very poorly. I don't understand why Genesis could not have been kept on as mod. It seems a but controlling, and this doesn't help that perception.
Now everyone is going to walk on eggshells again, lest they land on the receiving end of a witch hunt style banning spree.
As much as I love I2, AFF is different. It tends to serve the needs of younger people and those who are DXed as adults. It is smaller than WP, so it is easier to connect with others.
Larry and I were just talking about the idea if putting something together for younger Autists. Maybe this is the kick in the ass we need.
*sighs*
I hope it isn't how it seems...
I posted support for Les, I cant access AFF.
This is twattery, are we all supposed to be grown-ups?
Are we all banned for the sin of disagreement with Amy? :dunno:
I hardly know what is going on.
Apparently Bloke got into a scuffle and Amy banned him, permanently.
Then El-prez started a thread "Bring Bloke Back"....there was shitton of support for bloke- we all love him, minus a few members who remained neutral.
Then that thread got locked.
So I created a thread "BLOKE" to basically continue el-prez's thread since his got locked.
Next thing I know the site is down.
Is this something like a "five years itch" at AFF?
Shutting down the site, and Bloke being permabanned, and people supporting him. And, most and for all, Amy going out of her mind, looks like something that happened in July/August 5 years ago.
Have there been admins banned too?
What's this about imaginary sources? It's clear Ministry of silly walks is one source, and as far as I know :tinfoil: they are neither Gareth nor Amy. The threads point out a bunch of other people who have their own takes on what happened and how it affects them. So why insist that ALL agree with you in full?
People are entitled to their own opinions, just not their own facts.
The irony. :LMAO:
No, actually, that was really funny, coming from you. :LOL:What's this about imaginary sources? It's clear Ministry of silly walks is one source, and as far as I know :tinfoil: they are neither Gareth nor Amy. The threads point out a bunch of other people who have their own takes on what happened and how it affects them. So why insist that ALL agree with you in full?
People are entitled to their own opinions, just not their own facts.
The irony. :LMAO:
Shaming tactic and hubris.
As a vet of several defunct fora, I'm in a position to make the following observation:
One very effective way to destroy a forum is to goad the biggest mouth on the forum into making a bunch of wild accusations against Admin. Then campaign for same to be banned. Once he's banned, you start shooting down all his sympathisers. A good way to do this is to circulate a bunch of nasty rumours about them, with emphasis on "dishonesty" , so that any inconvenient truth that leaks out can be easily dismissed as a lie. Whilst circulating said rumours you offer a very pausible reason as to why your identity should not be made public, of course.
Eventually you get a good half of the forum either at each other's throats or paranoid as fuck. Or both, ofc. Eventually Admin succumbs to the toxic atmosphere and pulls the plug. If you're really clever about it, the whole fiasco gets blamed on Motormouth, and you come out smelling of roses.
I thought that kind of thing was unlikely to work on I2, but I'm seriously beginning to wonder. On the surface of it, this surely looks like a variation on that theme. And even if nobody's pulling our strings after all (that's pure speculation on my part) it surely is a toxic atmosphere.
Let's be candid. I think the level of moderation creep from Odeon is shameful and if he continues, it may one day reach some other heavily moderated forums BUT I am not going to dishonest state bullshit to sell a narrative. It would be dishonest to say this is as heavily moderated as WP for example.
With the above hypothetical, what if Rabbit from Hell, Robert N, Meadow, Buttcoffee and TCO all agreed with my smear, would that mean the statement was any more credible or correct?
This is the bullshit Odeon is trying. He ought to have plenty of material without resorting to base dishonesty. This all presumes his sources are not simply him making it all up to smear me and further his narrative by methods fair or foul
Odeon, sometimes rumours circulated privately by sources that prefer to remain anonymous turn out to contain good info, but most often they don't. Most often they are put about by the real villain of the piece, and are designed to destroy their enemies' credibilty, or otherwise sow mischief.
For my own part , I was dismissive of your sources, simply because this very much appears to be a case-in-point. Well , maybe, just maybe, I've dismissed some good and relevant info out-of-hand but heck, you've offered us no other way of assessing it for ourselves have you? You can't seriously expect people to eat your opinion on the matter out of your hand?
I do have concerns about Al's recent behaviour- I've made no secret of that. But the accusation that he brought down AFF was left-of-field. And I do very much want to be fair to him.
What's this about imaginary sources? It's clear Ministry of silly walks is one source, and as far as I know :tinfoil: they are neither Gareth nor Amy. The threads point out a bunch of other people who have their own takes on what happened and how it affects them. So why insist that ALL agree with you in full?
People are entitled to their own opinions, just not their own facts.
The irony. :LMAO:
Shaming tactic and hubris.
As a vet of several defunct fora, I'm in a position to make the following observation:
One very effective way to destroy a forum is to goad the biggest mouth on the forum into making a bunch of wild accusations against Admin. Then campaign for same to be banned. Once he's banned, you start shooting down all his sympathisers. A good way to do this is to circulate a bunch of nasty rumours about them, with emphasis on "dishonesty" , so that any inconvenient truth that leaks out can be easily dismissed as a lie. Whilst circulating said rumours you offer a very pausible reason as to why your identity should not be made public, of course.
Eventually you get a good half of the forum either at each other's throats or paranoid as fuck. Or both, ofc. Eventually Admin succumbs to the toxic atmosphere and pulls the plug. If you're really clever about it, the whole fiasco gets blamed on Motormouth, and you come out smelling of roses.
I thought that kind of thing was unlikely to work on I2, but I'm seriously beginning to wonder. On the surface of it, this surely looks like a variation on that theme. And even if nobody's pulling our strings after all (that's pure speculation on my part) it surely is a toxic atmosphere, and cries of "Liar!" are not helping in the least.
Just to make myself clear: there's a big difference , in my vocabulary, between "beginning to suspect", and "It's a fact". Also, in my vocabulary, "that's pure speculation on my part" is more than a meaningless blast of hot air.As a vet of several defunct fora, I'm in a position to make the following observation:
One very effective way to destroy a forum is to goad the biggest mouth on the forum into making a bunch of wild accusations against Admin. Then campaign for same to be banned. Once he's banned, you start shooting down all his sympathisers. A good way to do this is to circulate a bunch of nasty rumours about them, with emphasis on "dishonesty" , so that any inconvenient truth that leaks out can be easily dismissed as a lie. Whilst circulating said rumours you offer a very pausible reason as to why your identity should not be made public, of course.
Eventually you get a good half of the forum either at each other's throats or paranoid as fuck. Or both, ofc. Eventually Admin succumbs to the toxic atmosphere and pulls the plug. If you're really clever about it, the whole fiasco gets blamed on Motormouth, and you come out smelling of roses.
I thought that kind of thing was unlikely to work on I2, but I'm seriously beginning to wonder. On the surface of it, this surely looks like a variation on that theme. And even if nobody's pulling our strings after all (that's pure speculation on my part) it surely is a toxic atmosphere, and cries of "Liar!" are not helping in the least.
You seem convinced that strings are being pulled. I don't think that's the case and I've been around for some time, too.
Al's said that he'll contain his bs to this thread which should be enough to contain the toxicity, too. We'll see. As you might have guessed, I don't trust him.
Hey Gareth why did you and Amy lie about reasons for those mass-banning those years ago?I don't recall ever lieing about the reason for a ban, but then if i'm a liar there is of course no point in listening to me is there?
It depends entirely, doesn't it Gareth? Sometimes justifications, right or wrong, paint a picture from the poster, that the person interviewing them can not paint. Sometimes it is good to see how someone manipulates truth. Sometimes we are amazed at honesty from a place of dark deceit.
But hey you "don't recall"? Let me help you with at least one instance and we can work from there.
You supported the lie that Amy sprouted publicly that Rossco was organising a group of people to attack Amy and yourself. That was of course Bullshit, but Amy endorsed it publicly. Rossco always went straight to the source of the problem, Amy, at every instance without organising anything with any one. Also without involving himself in things like the gagging avatar thing or whatever. This is whilst you were doing your best to distance yourself from any direct involvement.
When Rossco was banned this was the reason given, that he was the ringleader to these actions. She stated she had proof given by Pm but could not publish it. This too was bullshit as there was no proof, because there was no truth behind the allegation. It was just a sneaky manipulative lie that she could tell, whilst pretending to hide behind the good form of allowing the non-existent "whistleblower" anonimity
There was no whistleblower. No Pm. Just a very angry lady, to whom you are married, wanting to force her will and make a somewhat plausible smear and ban on Rossco. She was prepared to lie to get it.
Why don't you just ask Amy to show you the PM she received that accused Rossco of organizing members to attack you? Then you could see what evidence the person who PMed her gave to support this allegation against him, or whether there was any evidence.
I'd rather not bother her with digging up that old drama, that's why.
Furthermore if you DID want to know who was organising all of this it would really come down to two people (if not me) wouldn't it? Think back on who were two of the biggest personalities there at the time. It will be one or the other. It simply was not me.
Al is Bloke is Rossco.
He was not a ringleader of the "main" protests, he was off doing his own thing - directly to what was viewed as the root of the problem, to talk it out. Yes, Rossco is blunt, he is direct, he doesn't pull his punches - hell, sometimes he's downright rude; But he's not a weasel. If he's ever going to stab you in the back it'll be to your face, to steal from Firefly.
I'll tell you straight up who the main shitstirrer was - Max the Bear.
This is why I didn't ban Bloke when I knew full well he was Rossco; His ban, like my own, Bardwolfs and a few others, were completely unfair and kneejerk - and in the case of Bardwolf and at least one other, I've undone them.
Max the Bear can eat shit, though.
*Edit*
Also, can we move this somewhere Guests can't see it
Pikajedi said this to me on MSN too, i'm pretty much forced to go along with it at this point.
Just to make myself clear: there's a big difference , in my vocabulary, between "beginning to suspect", and "It's a fact". Also, in my vocabulary, "that's pure speculation on my part" is more than a meaningless blast of hot air.As a vet of several defunct fora, I'm in a position to make the following observation:
One very effective way to destroy a forum is to goad the biggest mouth on the forum into making a bunch of wild accusations against Admin. Then campaign for same to be banned. Once he's banned, you start shooting down all his sympathisers. A good way to do this is to circulate a bunch of nasty rumours about them, with emphasis on "dishonesty" , so that any inconvenient truth that leaks out can be easily dismissed as a lie. Whilst circulating said rumours you offer a very pausible reason as to why your identity should not be made public, of course.
Eventually you get a good half of the forum either at each other's throats or paranoid as fuck. Or both, ofc. Eventually Admin succumbs to the toxic atmosphere and pulls the plug. If you're really clever about it, the whole fiasco gets blamed on Motormouth, and you come out smelling of roses.
I thought that kind of thing was unlikely to work on I2, but I'm seriously beginning to wonder. On the surface of it, this surely looks like a variation on that theme. And even if nobody's pulling our strings after all (that's pure speculation on my part) it surely is a toxic atmosphere, and cries of "Liar!" are not helping in the least.
You seem convinced that strings are being pulled. I don't think that's the case and I've been around for some time, too.
Al's said that he'll contain his bs to this thread which should be enough to contain the toxicity, too. We'll see. As you might have guessed, I don't trust him.
On other fora , I've been in the unusual position of knowing exactly what was going on, exactly who was resposible, and was able to gather a bunch of hard evidence. I've even been personally targetted by one or two of those subterranean smear campaigns, on account of my knowing too much. If the same were true here, I'd be a lot more explicit . I wouldn't limit myself to pointing out worrying patterns, I would bloody well pounce.
It's not just a question of being " around for a long time" . How many fora have fallen to pieces around you, Odeon? And how much did you learn about the subterranean goings-on? I learned a lot more than your average Admin would ever learn - largely because people tend to share their personal problems with me, and these things do get very , very personal. And I ask people questions like "WTF happened to your self-confidence?" and the answer occasionally turns out to be a ruthless bullying campaign, that nobody knew about, nor even suspected , because it all happened behind the scenes. (and yes, I've seen the actual damning PMs)
Meantime, the people running to Admin and making complaints and accusations were not the people who were being damaged; quite the opposite, most often.
So, I think I most likely know a lot more than you about that sort of thing. But I'm open to being surprised.
I see no atttempt on walkie's part to make some sort of emotionally-ruled competitive event take place. She has nothing to gain from doing so as far as I can see.
I really can't believe you all bought it!
well, guys. i was implying that odeon might have a been a tad hasty and over-credulous, even that he might have been played by somebody. I don't seriously expect him to say "Oops, yeah. That's a thought" . I think i got off pretty lightly, there.
As for the accusation that you vbrought down AFF, Al , looks like nobody else takes it seriously, doesn't it? I do believe it's been pretty well laughed out of court by now, regardless of whether Odeon admits that or not. Might be wrong, but I think we can safely move on.
I mean, hey! the guy got egg on his face, here. What do we expect him to do about that? Take a selfie, and post it on the front page? Nah, might be fun, but not gonna happen.
I see no atttempt on walkie's part to make some sort of emotionally-ruled competitive event take place. She has nothing to gain from doing so as far as I can see.
Nor I.
Odeon made some big claims that smeared me and stated them as dact based statements and when I argued the polar opposite, he said that "I" was being dishonest and engaging in history revisionism.
So I backed everything I said with other people's words including 2 of the 3 Admins.
Now it is on him to show he is not lies and hot air and back his big claims.
I can, he can't. Who is credible?
A principle fundamental to science, and to scientists, is that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', and yes, if it is a third party making the claims against somebody, the onus is upon them to prove those claims true, not for the party the claims are made against to prove otherwise, so as to disallow a 'win by default', which in logic, is not a valid outcome.
For example, if you were to accuse me of being a paedophile (and I'm not for a minute suggesting you have or are), it would rest upon YOU to prove that *I* had abused the child, not my responsibility to prove that I did not. You would be the one who must present the evidence, and not I the one who had to refute all hypothetical possible sources of that which could potentially be seen as evidence by SOME party, by however slim a margin. The latter equates to a herculean task, and one both impossible and impractical, for it is not possible to prove a negative. One can of course prove a person IS something or DID something, but proving that same person ISN'T that thing, or that they did NOT do a thing is quite different and logically impossible. And what is more, demanding the accused prove their innocence rather than demanding the accuser prove the guilt of the accused is neither fair nor reasonable. That gives way too much (false and undeserved) of a shadowy, nasty sort of pseudo-credibility to accusers at the expense of the party facing the accusation.
well, guys. i was implying that odeon might have a been a tad hasty and over-credulous, even that he might have been played by somebody. I don't seriously expect him to say "Oops, yeah. That's a thought" . I think i got off pretty lightly, there.
As for the accusation that you vbrought down AFF, Al , looks like nobody else takes it seriously, doesn't it? I do believe it's been pretty well laughed out of court by now, regardless of whether Odeon admits that or not. Might be wrong, but I think we can safely move on.
I mean, hey! the guy got egg on his face, here. What do we expect him to do about that? Take a selfie, and post it on the front page? Nah, might be fun, but not gonna happen.
I see no atttempt on walkie's part to make some sort of emotionally-ruled competitive event take place. She has nothing to gain from doing so as far as I can see.
Nor I.
Odeon made some big claims that smeared me and stated them as dact based statements and when I argued the polar opposite, he said that "I" was being dishonest and engaging in history revisionism.
So I backed everything I said with other people's words including 2 of the 3 Admins.
Now it is on him to show he is not lies and hot air and back his big claims.
I can, he can't. Who is credible?
Arguing with you is utterly pointless. Also, quoting people who weren't behind the decision to close down AFF amounts to a lot of hot air, nothing more. I have heard opposing opinions that I find credible, especially in light of your behaviour here, and so the difference between me and you now is that I don't quote my sources. Why should I? I already know what you are and won't allow what happened at AFF to happen here.
well, guys. i was implying that odeon might have a been a tad hasty and over-credulous, even that he might have been played by somebody. I don't seriously expect him to say "Oops, yeah. That's a thought" . I think i got off pretty lightly, there.
As for the accusation that you vbrought down AFF, Al , looks like nobody else takes it seriously, doesn't it? I do believe it's been pretty well laughed out of court by now, regardless of whether Odeon admits that or not. Might be wrong, but I think we can safely move on.
I mean, hey! the guy got egg on his face, here. What do we expect him to do about that? Take a selfie, and post it on the front page? Nah, might be fun, but not gonna happen.
It was quite clear what you were implying, Walkie, but claiming that nobody is taking what I said seriously is just not true. If you think you can read people's minds, then read mine.
Oh, and by posting the last few messages, you just lost what little respect I had for you and your opinions.
A principle fundamental to science, and to scientists, is that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', and yes, if it is a third party making the claims against somebody, the onus is upon them to prove those claims true, not for the party the claims are made against to prove otherwise, so as to disallow a 'win by default', which in logic, is not a valid outcome.
For example, if you were to accuse me of being a paedophile (and I'm not for a minute suggesting you have or are), it would rest upon YOU to prove that *I* had abused the child, not my responsibility to prove that I did not. You would be the one who must present the evidence, and not I the one who had to refute all hypothetical possible sources of that which could potentially be seen as evidence by SOME party, by however slim a margin. The latter equates to a herculean task, and one both impossible and impractical, for it is not possible to prove a negative. One can of course prove a person IS something or DID something, but proving that same person ISN'T that thing, or that they did NOT do a thing is quite different and logically impossible. And what is more, demanding the accused prove their innocence rather than demanding the accuser prove the guilt of the accused is neither fair nor reasonable. That gives way too much (false and undeserved) of a shadowy, nasty sort of pseudo-credibility to accusers at the expense of the party facing the accusation.
This is not science, though, it's simply stopping a bully.
I have heard opposing opinions that I find credible, especially in light of your behaviour here, and so the difference between me and you now is that I don't quote my sources. Why should I?
I already know what you are and won't allow what happened at AFF to happen here.
It was quite clear what you were implying, Walkie, but claiming that nobody is taking what I said seriously is just not true. If you think you can read people's minds, then read mine.
A principle fundamental to science, and to scientists, is that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', and yes, if it is a third party making the claims against somebody, the onus is upon them to prove those claims true, not for the party the claims are made against to prove otherwise, so as to disallow a 'win by default', which in logic, is not a valid outcome.
For example, if you were to accuse me of being a paedophile (and I'm not for a minute suggesting you have or are), it would rest upon YOU to prove that *I* had abused the child, not my responsibility to prove that I did not. You would be the one who must present the evidence, and not I the one who had to refute all hypothetical possible sources of that which could potentially be seen as evidence by SOME party, by however slim a margin. The latter equates to a herculean task, and one both impossible and impractical, for it is not possible to prove a negative. One can of course prove a person IS something or DID something, but proving that same person ISN'T that thing, or that they did NOT do a thing is quite different and logically impossible. And what is more, demanding the accused prove their innocence rather than demanding the accuser prove the guilt of the accused is neither fair nor reasonable. That gives way too much (false and undeserved) of a shadowy, nasty sort of pseudo-credibility to accusers at the expense of the party facing the accusation.
This is not science, though, it's simply stopping a bully.
I wish everyone would stop targeting Odeon and leave him alone. He’s not an angel, but he isn’t constantly down peoples’ throats.
I really don’t get the moral stuff, one can justify morals by being as self-righteous as they like, I see a lot of that going on in here. A person with better morals can bully others into submission, using guilttrips, getting them to back themselves up...the end of the day, you can call anything right or better, and justified, but constantly nagging somebody into it is a form of bullying.
I wish everyone would stop targeting Odeon and leave him alone. He’s not an angel, but he isn’t constantly down peoples’ throats.
I see no atttempt on walkie's part to make some sort of emotionally-ruled competitive event take place. She has nothing to gain from doing so as far as I can see.
Nor I.
Odeon made some big claims that smeared me and stated them as dact based statements and when I argued the polar opposite, he said that "I" was being dishonest and engaging in history revisionism.
So I backed everything I said with other people's words including 2 of the 3 Admins.
Now it is on him to show he is not lies and hot air and back his big claims.
I can, he can't. Who is credible?
Arguing with you is utterly pointless. Also, quoting people who weren't behind the decision to close down AFF amounts to a lot of hot air, nothing more. I have heard opposing opinions that I find credible, especially in light of your behaviour here, and so the difference between me and you now is that I don't quote my sources. Why should I? I already know what you are and won't allow what happened at AFF to happen here.
In other words, you can't back yourself and are a propagandist with no credibility. Don't worry. I got it.
Look, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter that much. But for the record, the person I quoted the most was Gareth Even without his many quotes:
* I put far more on the table to back myself than you could
* AND all sourced from this website
* AND by people from that forum
* AND from that time compared to..."I heard from a source..."
Blow it out your arse, you impotent, little slug
I wish everyone would stop targeting Odeon and leave him alone. He’s not an angel, but he isn’t constantly down peoples’ throats.
I really don’t get the moral stuff, one can justify morals by being as self-righteous as they like, I see a lot of that going on in here. A person with better morals can bully others into submission, using guilttrips, getting them to back themselves up...the end of the day, you can call anything right or better, and justified, but constantly nagging somebody into it is a form of bullying.
Oh fuck that.
"Innocent bullied" Odeon has been trying to peddle this narrative whereby I am a big nasty bully trying to bring down his forum and hurt his family and therefore ANYTHING he says or does is a righteous stand against this evil menance. He is playing the virtuopus defender.
Then to give more credence to this dishonest narrative he has a brief hiatus (which everyone felt so badly for him for) and then comes back giving me ultimatums (which seems to be "I must back down and take whatever shit he throws at me") and finally to try to extend this point drums up propaganda that I was the cause of AFF going down.
I call this bullshit and he says I am using history revisionism and being dishonest. Fine I back my narrative almost perfectly to that of the people that were there at the time and from the words THEY used at the time to explain the situation INCLUDING two of the three Admins.
In return he backs nothing and I call him on that.
You say "Poor Odeon". Really? LOL
I wish everyone would stop targeting Odeon and leave him alone. He’s not an angel, but he isn’t constantly down peoples’ throats.
I really don’t get the moral stuff, one can justify morals by being as self-righteous as they like, I see a lot of that going on in here. A person with better morals can bully others into submission, using guilttrips, getting them to back themselves up...the end of the day, you can call anything right or better, and justified, but constantly nagging somebody into it is a form of bullying.
Oh fuck that.
"Innocent bullied" Odeon has been trying to peddle this narrative whereby I am a big nasty bully trying to bring down his forum and hurt his family and therefore ANYTHING he says or does is a righteous stand against this evil menance. He is playing the virtuopus defender.
Then to give more credence to this dishonest narrative he has a brief hiatus (which everyone felt so badly for him for) and then comes back giving me ultimatums (which seems to be "I must back down and take whatever shit he throws at me") and finally to try to extend this point drums up propaganda that I was the cause of AFF going down.
I call this bullshit and he says I am using history revisionism and being dishonest. Fine I back my narrative almost perfectly to that of the people that were there at the time and from the words THEY used at the time to explain the situation INCLUDING two of the three Admins.
In return he backs nothing and I call him on that.
You say "Poor Odeon". Really? LOL
Pretty sure she didn't say that. You're as dishonest as always. Let's hear the bigotry next
I see no atttempt on walkie's part to make some sort of emotionally-ruled competitive event take place. She has nothing to gain from doing so as far as I can see.
Nor I.
Odeon made some big claims that smeared me and stated them as dact based statements and when I argued the polar opposite, he said that "I" was being dishonest and engaging in history revisionism.
So I backed everything I said with other people's words including 2 of the 3 Admins.
Now it is on him to show he is not lies and hot air and back his big claims.
I can, he can't. Who is credible?
Arguing with you is utterly pointless. Also, quoting people who weren't behind the decision to close down AFF amounts to a lot of hot air, nothing more. I have heard opposing opinions that I find credible, especially in light of your behaviour here, and so the difference between me and you now is that I don't quote my sources. Why should I? I already know what you are and won't allow what happened at AFF to happen here.
In other words, you can't back yourself and are a propagandist with no credibility. Don't worry. I got it.
Look, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter that much. But for the record, the person I quoted the most was Gareth Even without his many quotes:
* I put far more on the table to back myself than you could
* AND all sourced from this website
* AND by people from that forum
* AND from that time compared to..."I heard from a source..."
Blow it out your arse, you impotent, little slug
Wanker. Your walls of text do not equal evidence. The only person who actually knows is Amy. Everything else is speculation. Mine is credible, yours is little more than copying and pasting.
So fuck off, little man. You are a bully and your pattern here is more than enough evidence for me.
It's more than enough for me to see your behaviour here and compare it to what I've been told about your behaviour at AFF. It's what you are, Al, a bully. A pathetic little excuse of a man-child.
Now fuck off.
I wasn't reading minds, Odeon. I was just judging by what people have openly said on this forum. The only person I can see who openly supports your narrative is hiding behind a new account, and not telling us who the heck he was on AFF. Without a lot more info than that, I'm not willing to take his opinion seriously, especially not given that it's defamatory.
It was quite clear what you were implying, Walkie, but claiming that nobody is taking what I said seriously is just not true. If you think you can read people's minds, then read mine.
Oh, and by posting the last few messages, you just lost what little respect I had for you and your opinions.
It's more than enough for me to see your behaviour here and compare it to what I've been told about your behaviour at AFF. It's what you are, Al, a bully. A pathetic little excuse of a man-child.
Now fuck off.
It is one of your sillier opinions but kudos for your consistency of narrative. That is something new the slug may be in the process of metamorphise. Doubtful but I have optimism
I wasn't reading minds, Odeon. I was just judging by what people have openly said on this forum. The only person I can see who openly supports your narrative is hiding behind a new account, and not telling us who the heck he was on AFF. Without a lot more info than that, I'm not willing to take his opinion seriously, especially not given that it's defamatory.
It was quite clear what you were implying, Walkie, but claiming that nobody is taking what I said seriously is just not true. If you think you can read people's minds, then read mine.
I've agreed with you that Al's behaviour here is a form of bullying, and I do I stand by what I said. That said, I regret making so strong a point of it when I did. I regret that because I didn't know that this bloody great can of worms was about to be re-opened did I? For my own part, I want Al to think twice about that behaviour. I don't want to beat him about the head with a great big stick until he feels totally justified in resuming said behaviour. Especially not if that entails dredging up some really unsound and unjust asccusatons concerning what went on years ago on another board and citing a bunch of anonymous witnesses.
You're acting as if you've made up your mind to ban Al, and you're desperate to justify that action to yourself. Might be wrong; you might be thoroughly dishonest , like some people say, but to my mind , I'm looking at a man acting under extreme pressure . And yeah, Al is surely instumental in piling on the pressure. There are no angels here. The relationship beween you and Al has turned toxic and is bring out the worst in you both. Something needs to be done about that, for everybody's sake.
Well, there's your justification, if you need one: something needs to be done. I've already said that I'd rather let Pyraxis take control ; if therte's a better way forward, she's more likely to find it isn't she? because it isn't personal to her. You turned down that suggestion. Well, OK, you're the boss, but Al being banned by Odeon is still the worst-case-scenario for this board, IMO... short of whole board falling apart.
Unlike some, I don't believe you're actually lying, Odeon. (except to yourse;f, maybe) . And I bloody well wish that people would stop crying "Liar" at each other, because it's worse-than- pointless talking things over if nobody is willing to take it on trust that others are doing their best to communicate honestly. Aspies generally do try to communicate honestly (we're notorious for being excessively honest , FFS) ... except insofar as that might entail spilling the beans on some deeply personal shit, ofc.
Ofc, neither you nor Al is gonna spill, not in the middle of a fight on the spazznet's most notorious forum, with your detractors taking detailed notes on all you say, to use in evidence against you. That's just natural self-preservation. Can't blame you in the least. However, I don't see it being resolved any other way than by getting under the skin. I think we've got all sorts of personal shit that has nothing to do with this forum coming into this. In an ideal world, you'd both backl off, go into analysis, IRL, and come back with a more detached perspective. But yeah, I know, I know, that's not gonna happen either; that's just my own pleasant little daydreamQuoteOh, and by posting the last few messages, you just lost what little respect I had for you and your opinions.
Well, i'm evidently not currying favour here, am I? I've been open enough about my POV to risk pissing everybody off. That said, I'm not m,ade of stone. It actually does grieve me to lose your respect. It also grieved me to openly agree with Scap and Co, at this juncture. Not so long back, Al was having a go at me , in his usual dogged fashion. You backed me up. More than that, your responses were genuinely outraged and flaming angry, so it seemed to me. I was (and remain) grateful for that. I haven't forgotten, nor shall I, but I just don't do that "blind loyalty" thing, especially not when I do actually sympathise with both sides.
I've said it before, but i'll say again: you and Al are both being inflammatory in your different fashions, both goading each other beyond endurance. I don't want to be cheering for Team Odeon and more than I want to be cheering fo Team Al, because I really do believe that only makes matters worse.
I'm bloody sad about the whole damned mess, truth to tell, but I don't believe that scapegoating solves it.
[EDIT. I actually wrote this yesteday, but didnt post it - called away from PC. I now note that IQ also finds the "Al destroyed AFF" theory credible. But that doesn't alter my opinions]
We are both Grumpy old men. Neither of us like to be told what to say or do, and so on and so forth.
Can psychological speculation be condescending? Absolutely. But it's also a huge part of Walkie's personality and how she tries to connect with people. With the caveat that I can't speak for her, I doubt she means it in a condescending way. When she's condescending, it's much more likely to be barbed humor. >:DActually, Pk, I reckon you know me better than almost anyone by now, and I would pretty much trust you to speak on my behalf (just so long as you accept that I might have fun with the occasional caveat >:D). And , in short : thanks :)
Nice going, Walkie. Now they're both mad at you. :zoinks:
Walkie just to be on the level with you, I do not think you are a terrible person or inherently bad. I DO think (and again you will see evidence of this) I think that you chose for whatever reason of yours to say some pretty fucking poor things mainly about Rockhound and me and they were dishonest. I think you chose to be dishonest and I think it was shit you made those choices. It was beneath you.Al, I've plussed you for most of the content of this post, as I hope you noticed, But if you must keep harking back to that thing with Ozy, I will add that if a man says I am "worse than Tombo" - then "paranoid" is the kindest complexion I can put on that . You have no idea what an insult that is, because you weren't on same forum at same time. Maybe Ozy can fill you in? And if - as it happened- the next thing that turns up is his astonishing rant about Elle on this board, then that impression is confirmed, in my mind. Now, Ozy and I are(or rather were, I should say) very old friends, and I like to think that we can both get past all that. No need to dwell on it, ad nauseam, or rub each others faces in it. Well, maybe that's an empty wish on my side, but endlessly dredging it back up calling me "dishonest" on that count is both unfair and extremely unhelpful, IMO. It's like picking at scabs. And it's not even your scab . What do you imagine my honest POV was? No, don't answer that. That's a rhetorical question. I really don't want to know. My POV is pretty flexible actually, and I'll be happy to dismiss the whole thing as a "flash in the pan" ...if allowed to do so.
Walkie just to be on the level with you, I do not think you are a terrible person or inherently bad. I DO think (and again you will see evidence of this) I think that you chose for whatever reason of yours to say some pretty fucking poor things mainly about Rockhound and me and they were dishonest. I think you chose to be dishonest and I think it was shit you made those choices. It was beneath you.Al, I've plussed you for most of the content of this post, as I hope you noticed, But if you must keep harking back to that thing with Ozy, I will add that if a man says I am "worse than Tombo" - then "paranoid" is the kindest complexion I can put on that . You have no idea what an insult that is, because you weren't on same forum at same time. Maybe Ozy can fill you in? And if - as it happened- the next thing that turns up is his astonishing rant about Elle on this board, then that impression is confirmed, in my mind. Now, Ozy and I are(or rather were, I should say) very old friends, and I like to think that we can both get past all that. No need to dwell on it, ad nauseam, or rub each others faces in it. Well, maybe that's an empty wish on my side, but endlessly dredging it back up calling me "dishonest" on that count is both unfair and extremely unhelpful, IMO. It's like picking at scabs. And it's not even your scab . What do you imagine my honest POV was? No, don't answer that. That's a rhetorical question. I really don't want to know. My POV is pretty flexible actually, and I'll be happy to dismiss the whole thing as a "flash in the pan" ...if allowed to do so.
[ PS @ozy. by "getting past it" I simply mean that I should hope that a modicum of trust and goodwill can be restored. not that I imagine us becoming firm friends again, just decent neighbours. I'm not asking for the earth ]
Just a few clarifications:
I did send Odeon a PM regarding the uncanny similarities between what occurred at AFF vs what seems to be occurring at I^2. I am certain that I am not Odeon's only source.
Seeing as I^2 was used as a platform to launch the backlash against Amy and Gareth, no doubt they are loving the irony of seeing that very same presence that the resistance rallied behind now at the heart of the potential destruction of I^2. The support for Amy and Gareth during that time was considerable and it mainly centred around facebook and the AFF chat rooms.
I have seen Odeon being "cast" into the role of Amy. I don't know if this is some kind of bizarre, anal-retentive revenge fantasy, or if there is some other warped explanation. I do know that Odeon will need to be careful to avoid the same outcome. Amy tried to cut out a cancer from AFF and, in doing so, she unfortunately killed the patient. Lack of transparency and apparent lack of due process led to an impression that Amy was being unfair.
I know that there are a minimum of rules here at I^2. But it needs to be remembered that the forum does not serve the rules, the rules need to serve the forum. If Odeon needs to change the rules to take into account that there are personalities and behaviours that the original rules could not foresee, and which are destroying I^2 as a productive and enjoyable platform, then that may need to be on the table. Transparency and due process are important, a sudden perma-ban and a refusal to discuss other options may produce a negative backlash (as was the case with AFF). A series of warnings followed by a series of suspensions of increasing length and plenty of room for a troublesome member to mend their ways may be a better approach.
The reality is that a place like I^2 isn't going to change the world. But it once did provide an enjoyable and fun escape for a large number of members. I don't now about the rest of the residual membership, but being stalked around the forum, insulted and attacked at every opportunity, confronted by angry and hostile walls of text every day, is not fun for most people. Except for one member who lives for that shit, and has been doing it for many years.
Back up my claims? No need. You are doing a fantastic job of backing up my claims be being as toxic and destructive a presence on this forum as you were on AFF.
For those who haven't spotted a pattern emerging, how many forums do you need to be at the centre of their demise before the penny drops that this is a pattern?
Seeing as I^2 was used as a platform to launch the backlash against Amy and Gareth
I am certain that I am not Odeon's only source.
I am certain that I am not Odeon's only source.
Why is that? Who do you think are the other sources?
Regardless, :plus: for explaining your position.
I am certain that I am not Odeon's only source.
Why is that? Who do you think are the other sources?
Regardless, :plus: for explaining your position.
Well you've already cast Odeon as Amy. You can cast me as anyone you like. Whatever suits your persecution and revenge fantasy.Was beginning to think you're only here to stir things behind the scenes, and likely some revenge, so appreciate the explaining. If taking the explanation at face value, you seem to you care about this place, and mentioning how it was once a fun place for many people suggests you might have been one. Do you have a reason to care other than AFF? Not really asking for further explanation; only trying to get a perspective, so it's a simple yes or no question.
Well you've already cast Odeon as Amy. You can cast me as anyone you like. Whatever suits your persecution and revenge fantasy.Was beginning to think you're only here to stir things behind the scenes, and likely some revenge, so appreciate the explaining. If taking the explanation at face value, you seem to you care about this place, and mentioning how it was once a fun place for many people suggests you might have been one. Do you have a reason to care other than AFF? Not really asking for further explanation; only trying to get a perspective, so it's a simple yes or no question.
Well you've already cast Odeon as Amy. You can cast me as anyone you like. Whatever suits your persecution and revenge fantasy.Was beginning to think you're only here to stir things behind the scenes, and likely some revenge, so appreciate the explaining. If taking the explanation at face value, you seem to you care about this place, and mentioning how it was once a fun place for many people suggests you might have been one. Do you have a reason to care other than AFF? Not really asking for further explanation; only trying to get a perspective, so it's a simple yes or no question.
In case you haven't noticed, things are already stirred up. I2 doesn't need any help there. At this point there are 3 or 4 ways I can think of that things could go, and the one where I2 gets back to what it was and should be seems the least likely.
To be honest I've lurked here on and off for a while. I was pretty much waiting for the current situation to develop. It always seemed kind of inevitable.
And I don't care about I2. I do care about the people who found this an enjoyable place to hang out and no longer do. And if I2 does shut down it will leave a hole in some people's lives. So yeah, I do care. If Odeon don't like my advice he can tell me to get fucked. Apart from one PM it's all out in the open and will continue to be.
The fact of the matter is that Amy is most likely the only one who actually knows why AFF was closed down. Your so-called evidence is not worth anything.
I know you love hypotheticals, so let's do one.
If I had closed down I2 a couple of weeks ago and you had tried to swear innocence elsewhere, getting quotes from the other admins wouldn't have helped because they wouldn't have known what happened. When I thought about doing it, all I had posted about the matter was in two posts, none of which would have helped you.
You would have been the main reason for me to pull the plug, though, and I find it likely that something along those lines happened at AFF.
Walkie, what role did I play in the closure of AFF? None. I was just an observer saddened by how events unfolded.I was asking what role you played in AFF, not in the " closure of AFF.". Small but significant difference. Like, suppose you were a Mod there, then I'd think "Ah! you were privy to info that most people wouldn't be privy to" and your opinion would accrue a bit more weight for that. At the other extereme, suppose you were not even a regular participant, but somebody who came and went erratically, then your opinion would lose weighrt because you might easily have missed some imprtant developments, given that the forum took so long to unravel. Look at it this way: you're asking us to accept your opinion over a bunch of contradictory opinions that have posted on this site already. "just an observer" doesn't quite cut it. That suggests you're impartial, sure (though we only have your word for that) but it doesn't suggest that you know the story any better than anybody else does. You clearly think you know better, but you really need to back that up, somehow.
Sharing previous usernames. Is that a requirement here? Al seems to be doing just fine assigning defunct AFF usernames to current members on here, so perhaps he can give me one.
And I only need to observe current behaviour to see history repeating itself. No need to exhume the corpse of AFF. And, indeed, one of us is very likely wrong.
Gareth and Amy achieved far more for the recognition of neurodiversity than any of us can dream of. They have my utmost respect.
Gareth and Amy achieved far more for the recognition of neurodiversity than any of us can dream of. They have my utmost respect.
Mischaracterising again, I see.
The fact of the matter remains that if I had closed down this place, you would have the main reason. You can't lie, misrepresent, or otherwise weasel your way out of it. You are a bully and you are toxic, to this place and most likely to others.
Interestingly that's also why I didn't, because there is no way I will allow a bully to win. And it's only because this is I2 that I didn't ban you. But do go on. Lie, misrepresent, embrace your toxic self. It's what you do.
Walkie, what role did I play in the closure of AFF? None. I was just an observer saddened by how events unfolded.
Sharing previous usernames. Is that a requirement here? Al seems to be doing just fine assigning defunct AFF usernames to current members on here, so perhaps he can give me one.
And I only need to observe current behaviour to see history repeating itself. No need to exhume the corpse of AFF. And, indeed, one of us is very likely wrong.
Gareth and Amy achieved far more for the recognition of neurodiversity than any of us can dream of. They have my utmost respect.
Just to add my tuppence; When I met Gareth I thought he was totally cool and open-minded. I used to speak to Gareth on MSN Messenger. Then he introduced me to Amy and I thought she was a total bitch. I thought Gareth changed himself in order to fit into her ways. I didn’t like who he became.
At least on the AFF chatroom, I thought everybody there were all nutters, and I thought Autistic Pride Day was a load of self-absorbed pretentious bullshit, and I’m really glad it didn’t become a thing. My ex used to troll the chatroom cos he thought they were all nutjobs too, and they were easy to wind up. I didn’t like AFF and what they stood for. Militant bullshit. Never went onto the forum though. Maybe it was like WP and the chatroom had a completely different crowd to the forum.
Just to add my tuppence; When I met Gareth I thought he was totally cool and open-minded. I used to speak to Gareth on MSN Messenger. Then he introduced me to Amy and I thought she was a total bitch. I thought Gareth changed himself in order to fit into her ways. I didn’t like who he became.
At least on the AFF chatroom, I thought everybody there were all nutters, and I thought Autistic Pride Day was a load of self-absorbed pretentious bullshit, and I’m really glad it didn’t become a thing. My ex used to troll the chatroom cos he thought they were all nutjobs too, and they were easy to wind up. I didn’t like AFF and what they stood for. Militant bullshit. Never went onto the forum though. Maybe it was like WP and the chatroom had a completely different crowd to the forum.
Blah blabber blab blah blabber...
Blah blabber blab blah blabber...
Not interested. Go away.
Odeon, to respond to what you said about 'this isn't about science...'
And your having said 'This is not science, though, it's simply stopping a bully'
What I SAID, was that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of proof'. Doesn't have to be applied in the sense of scientific investigation, but the PRINCIPLE is exactly the same. Its axiomatic, and general. I simply pointed out that I was familiar with the concept, through of course, unsurprisingly, the scientific principles I follow, the principle itself? that can be taken out of the context of science and transplanted neatly into this shit-flinging cretinfest of yours.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence if they are to be backed up convincingly. For something of that nature, the bar is set high. And you, odeon cannot seem to live by that. You set the bar high for everybody else (unless they agree with you of course in which case you wallow in sycophancy like a pig wallowing in its own shit; and come off smelling no better) But for everybody else, you expect them to prove their points to a standard much more demanding than you set for yourself.
So no, thats fucking dogshit odeon. Extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence. Demanding claims require thought out, properly constructed proof if they are to be believable.
Its time for you to step up and act like a man, and to hold yourself to the same standards as you demand from others. Whats sauce for the goose, as they say..
As for AFF..too militant? bollocks it was. It wasn't militant ENOUGH. We did have some good activists, like aliengirl...but we needed more like her. Wish kassiane had been there; because THERE is a lady who knows how to give the deserving a proper chewing the fuck up and shitting them out in a screaming skinless partly digested heap of curebie turd World needs more people like kassi and aliengirl. And then there was Ana54, her writing was great. I'd have loved to see some of that put into action.
Odeon, to respond to what you said about 'this isn't about science...'
And your having said 'This is not science, though, it's simply stopping a bully'
What I SAID, was that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of proof'. Doesn't have to be applied in the sense of scientific investigation, but the PRINCIPLE is exactly the same. Its axiomatic, and general. I simply pointed out that I was familiar with the concept, through of course, unsurprisingly, the scientific principles I follow, the principle itself? that can be taken out of the context of science and transplanted neatly into this shit-flinging cretinfest of yours.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence if they are to be backed up convincingly. For something of that nature, the bar is set high. And you, odeon cannot seem to live by that. You set the bar high for everybody else (unless they agree with you of course in which case you wallow in sycophancy like a pig wallowing in its own shit; and come off smelling no better) But for everybody else, you expect them to prove their points to a standard much more demanding than you set for yourself.
So no, thats fucking dogshit odeon. Extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence. Demanding claims require thought out, properly constructed proof if they are to be believable.
Its time for you to step up and act like a man, and to hold yourself to the same standards as you demand from others. Whats sauce for the goose, as they say..
As for AFF..too militant? bollocks it was. It wasn't militant ENOUGH. We did have some good activists, like aliengirl...but we needed more like her. Wish kassiane had been there; because THERE is a lady who knows how to give the deserving a proper chewing the fuck up and shitting them out in a screaming skinless partly digested heap of curebie turd World needs more people like kassi and aliengirl. And then there was Ana54, her writing was great. I'd have loved to see some of that put into action.
Blah blabber bluh blah...
Blah blabber bluh blah...
I'm sure it was very interesting.
Blah blubber blah...
Quote (assigned to Al, falsely attributed) 'blah blubber blah'
He did not say anything of the kind. If you think he's a bully, get out with it. You need to show your reasons, not just try and brush it off with disdain and contempt. Because that is pathetic, spineless and contemptible.
And he doesn't strike me as a bully at all. He says what he thinks and he sticks to it unless he is given a good, respectable reason not to. You have just repeatedly attempted on many occasions to brush him off as irrelevant. Is it any wonder that leaves you with your pencil dick hanging out of your trousers, dribbling urine down your leg like an incontinent old man, gibbering shite like an alzheimer's patient somehow capable of retaining a grudge, only without the coherent sense they are so well known for making.
His points about wanting to mix 'equally' with the userbase, and yet still have recourse to using the admin tools to 'win' arguments you cannot back, are too lazy to back, is perfectly valid. Yet you try to brush it off with childish posting of barely even WORDS, falsely attributing said empty, meaningless guff to Al instead of engaging with his valid, fair point.
Sorry but you don't win arguments that way. At most you might be able to forcibly suppress one, but you'll never, EVER actually WIN one, using such base and cowardly tactics, you contemptible, pencil-dicked little boy.
*steps aside to avoid the rattle, bottle and dummy doubtless about to be thrown out of odeon's cot in one of his torrents of shyte*
Blah blah Blubber blah...
Contemptible vapid babblings of a spineless, imbecilic little jellyfish
Blah, blah, blubber, blo, blab bla...
Blah, blah, blubber, blo, blab bla...
You sound upset.
Blah, blah, blubber, blo, blab bla...
Blah, blah, blubber bloh blah
Blah, blah, blubber bloh blah
You sound like the other two.
Blah blah blubber blu blah
Blah blah blubber blah
I actually can think of a lot worse ways for this thread to collapse onto itself.
I actually can think of a lot worse ways for this thread to collapse onto itself.
Yeah. He could actually bablize everyone he disagreed with, instead of only doing it to what himself.
here's something you could use as a guide in life: reality is that which, when ignored, does not go away.I find it so fucking amazing that of all people our primary resident junkie came out with this.
here's something you could use as a guide in life: reality is that which, when ignored, does not go away.I find it so fucking amazing that of all people our primary resident junkie came out with this.
Blah blah blah...
I actually can think of a lot worse ways for this thread to collapse onto itself.
Yeah. He could actually bablize everyone he disagreed with, instead of only doing it to what himself.
Babblizer does not work anymore and so he has been leaning heavily on other Admin tools. Sinbin and the Shitty mod.
Same sort of ends though, I guess.
Blah bluh bluh blubber blah...
Two things, elle.Honestly, dude, all that would have a lot more merit if you didn't post so damn much about how much you love taking and making and thinking about drugs.
[post that says what seems like more than two things]
As if the occupation matters. Everyone needs to vent outside of work.
That said, giving an autistic shit for their special interest is going to go nowhere fast.
That said, giving an autistic shit for their special interest is going to go nowhere fast.What I was responding to was his implication that he needs to manage chronic pain through pain medication and therefore my use of the term "junkie" was unfair and unwarranted.
Is El, Autistic? She goes to great pains to tell us differently.
Whether that term is ever fair or warranted is perhaps a separate conversation, but the fact that Lestat's particular Aspie obsession is, in fact, drugs, is salient here. IMO Lestat doesn't just talk about drugs like someone with chronic pain who's on pain meds long-term. He talks about drugs like a junkie.
:dunno: He's totally allowed to talk like that, (again, so we're clear, when I say I think a particular member is obnoxious, I'm not saying they don't have the right to be however they're being, I'm just saying I find it obnoxious), but that is how he comes across, at least to me.
But that assumes I was hoping to get him to make some kind of change in the first place, doesn't it?:dunno: He's totally allowed to talk like that, (again, so we're clear, when I say I think a particular member is obnoxious, I'm not saying they don't have the right to be however they're being, I'm just saying I find it obnoxious), but that is how he comes across, at least to me.
Okay, and I'm allowed to point out futility. :P
Blah blah blubber blah...
Blah blah blubber blah...
Blah blah blubber blah...?.
Blah blah blubber blah...
Blah blah blubber blah...?.
?
No need for raxy and elle to feud.
THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS :viking:No need for raxy and elle to feud.
Actually I meant El and Lestat. I have no reason or intention of feuding with El.
Not sure it matter if Lestat is a junkie or not. Didn't notice him doing anything provoking, so saying junkie instead of saying Lestat seemed more like kicking his chair while walking by.
Its one thing if I go out of my way to provoke elle, another if I don't. What have I done for the most part but to try but to bring about a cessation of hostilities?
Treat me well, I treat you well, treat me neutrally I treat you neutrally, treat me like shit, I'll act the same way.
Its one thing if I go out of my way to provoke elle, another if I don't. What have I done for the most part but to try but to bring about a cessation of hostilities?
herpy derp.
Treat me well, I treat you well, treat me neutrally I treat you neutrally, treat me like shit, I'll act the same way.
We're not stranger in love you know the rules and so do I. Its not commitment that I'm asking for. You wouldn't get it from any other guy. AND if you ask me how I'm feeling. Don't tell me you're too blind to see...
Treat me well, I treat you well, treat me neutrally I treat you neutrally, treat me like shit, I'll act the same way.
We're not stranger in love you know the rules and so do I. Its not commitment that I'm asking for. You wouldn't get it from any other guy. AND if you ask me how I'm feeling. Don't tell me you're too blind to see...
Never gonna give you up. Never gonna make you cry. Never gonna tell a lie and desert you.
Post about an individual's own drug activity aren't very provoking for me. If he were responsible for anyone else, it more likely would be. Have more than once been concerned it might be risky for the site, or at the very least leave the administration holding a bag of crap if he were to get into life trouble, but if that's never been concern enough thus far to clamp down then didn't see much point being provoked by it.Not sure it matter if Lestat is a junkie or not. Didn't notice him doing anything provoking, so saying junkie instead of saying Lestat seemed more like kicking his chair while walking by.
I've been saying druggie but I guess that's wrong then.
He is a junkie, though. You only have to read his posts to know that (and if you don't think some of them aren't provocative enough, then I don't know what wold convince you). With some of them, I am fully expecting him to blow up his neighbourhood before long. Poor neighbours, I guess they didn't have a choice there.
Treat me well, I treat you well, treat me neutrally I treat you neutrally, treat me like shit, I'll act the same way.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fKUIzGk3hjk/hqdefault.jpg)
Uncanny. Beyond uncanny.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fKUIzGk3hjk/hqdefault.jpg)
Uncanny. Beyond uncanny.