I am, and I'm in it.
why can moderators say what they like, but everyone else can't?
- Thread starter lucifers angel
- Start date
- Status
Shorts:
Or are you, once again, not shadowing this Orleander woman around with your catty commentary disguised as 'support'?
Malakas:
You've been dying to get banned, haven't you? Here you are.
"Hey..", says the little boy soiling himself and snapping the girl's bra ..."I'm going to ask the dumb bitch why she won't answer me"
/funeral grin
/ja aja ja coochie coochie
How so?
Or are you, once again, not shadowing this Orleander woman around with your catty commentary disguised as 'support'?
Malakas:
Funny, your simpering gash gave you the same thing.
You've been dying to get banned, haven't you? Here you are.
Then try asking, retard.
"Hey..", says the little boy soiling himself and snapping the girl's bra ..."I'm going to ask the dumb bitch why she won't answer me"
/funeral grin
/ja aja ja coochie coochie
Lucky you. Having fun???
I am starting to see the charm in this freakshow its grown on me.
I can't get enough!
How so? She tried to use the same vulgarity as you, then looked to you
for a thumbs up. As soon as Malakas put her on the shit list for being lame
she immediately tried to redeem herself by coming up with something he would be proud of. Poor thing she is like a puppet on strings, you and Malakas the puppetmaster. It is entertaining actually.
in hommage to gandenken
Try telling, moron.
Is your only way to get a boys attention to throw yourself in the mud and pull him in behind you?
Dumb doesn't cover it
*dinner party laugher*
/after dinner fart
Notes Around
I'm torn over the answer, S.A.M. Part of me envisions a return to some prior era, except that's pretty much impossible. The community has, in many vital sectors, abandoned almost entirely any pretense of rational discussion of relevant issues in favor of a considerably more juvenile, pop-culture approach that sees a topic draw six pages of response in a matter of a few hours with virtually no substance.
Well that simultaneously escalates the ferocity and further degrades the quality of discussion around Sciforums as the smarter people—those who ought to know better—recognize that there really is no point in any pretense of dignity or restraint, and simply unload on the morons, who then, predictably, throw fist-banging tantrums.
That's probably an internal discussion, to be honest. It doesn't bother me to refer to the situation openly, because it's about time our Chorus of Idiots came to understand that the staff is often at odds with itself and the administration. People don't seem to realize how frequently and ferociously we fight among ourselves. However, one thing that is quite clear from myriad complaint topics is that an open discussion of propriety and standards will accomplish, at best, nothing useful.
My running cause around here, of course, is good faith. But, as so many arguments have it, an expectation of good faith is tantamount to liberal, atheistic bigotry intended to suppress dissent.
We all have our moments, to be sure. Some of our neighbors, however, seem to live in and for those moments. Flip a coin on what to do about it. Personally, I'll put up with a lot more if one posts in good faith. And while I'm generally willing to meet people on their own terms, that decision—as evidenced by the next section of this post—doesn't seem particularly useful. Sure, it plays to the bombast and bullshit around here, but it doesn't actually get anything done.
On review, I've decided you're right. I forgot that "downright lame" is synonymous with "convoluted". My apologies.
Change your name all you want. It won't make you honest.
Just trying to accommodate y'all. And yet you still complain.
One of the strange things I've noted about certain of my critics is that they love to remind me that they don't read my posts or portions thereof. Aside from undermining their own credibility, I'm not sure what the point of such snotty, juvenile bullshit actually is.
Maybe. I'll worry about it later.
If you say so. You're the one who doesn't read what I write, so you're obviously well-qualified to tell me what's wrong with my writing. Which is exactly why you've managed to hit on the polar opposite of the most common general criticism of my writing: that I spend too much time pandering to the audience.
So popularity is the hallmark of greatness. That's ... well, that's actually funny. Especially coming from you.
Because you'll never be an honest soul, Lepus. Do you know why? Because you spend so much more time and effort responding to your own narcissistic projections than actually dealing with reality. Seriously: after that less-than-brilliant tantrum, why did you come back? Did you run out of neighborhood children to demean?
S.A.M. said:
I'm torn over the answer, S.A.M. Part of me envisions a return to some prior era, except that's pretty much impossible. The community has, in many vital sectors, abandoned almost entirely any pretense of rational discussion of relevant issues in favor of a considerably more juvenile, pop-culture approach that sees a topic draw six pages of response in a matter of a few hours with virtually no substance.
Well that simultaneously escalates the ferocity and further degrades the quality of discussion around Sciforums as the smarter people—those who ought to know better—recognize that there really is no point in any pretense of dignity or restraint, and simply unload on the morons, who then, predictably, throw fist-banging tantrums.
That's probably an internal discussion, to be honest. It doesn't bother me to refer to the situation openly, because it's about time our Chorus of Idiots came to understand that the staff is often at odds with itself and the administration. People don't seem to realize how frequently and ferociously we fight among ourselves. However, one thing that is quite clear from myriad complaint topics is that an open discussion of propriety and standards will accomplish, at best, nothing useful.
My running cause around here, of course, is good faith. But, as so many arguments have it, an expectation of good faith is tantamount to liberal, atheistic bigotry intended to suppress dissent.
• • •
EmmZ said:
We all have our moments, to be sure. Some of our neighbors, however, seem to live in and for those moments. Flip a coin on what to do about it. Personally, I'll put up with a lot more if one posts in good faith. And while I'm generally willing to meet people on their own terms, that decision—as evidenced by the next section of this post—doesn't seem particularly useful. Sure, it plays to the bombast and bullshit around here, but it doesn't actually get anything done.
• • •
Lepustimidus said:
On review, I've decided you're right. I forgot that "downright lame" is synonymous with "convoluted". My apologies.
Change your name all you want. It won't make you honest.
Just trying to accommodate y'all. And yet you still complain.
One of the strange things I've noted about certain of my critics is that they love to remind me that they don't read my posts or portions thereof. Aside from undermining their own credibility, I'm not sure what the point of such snotty, juvenile bullshit actually is.
Maybe. I'll worry about it later.
If you say so. You're the one who doesn't read what I write, so you're obviously well-qualified to tell me what's wrong with my writing. Which is exactly why you've managed to hit on the polar opposite of the most common general criticism of my writing: that I spend too much time pandering to the audience.
So popularity is the hallmark of greatness. That's ... well, that's actually funny. Especially coming from you.
Because you'll never be an honest soul, Lepus. Do you know why? Because you spend so much more time and effort responding to your own narcissistic projections than actually dealing with reality. Seriously: after that less-than-brilliant tantrum, why did you come back? Did you run out of neighborhood children to demean?
You have some nerve, you actively dissuade substance and encourage a juvenile, pop-culture approach. You and JamesR and co have sculpted these forums into what they are, by punishing "contraversial" people and allowing safe boring idiots to prosper.
Then, either as a smartass jerk or an ignorant retard, you have the audacity to scratch your head like "what happened? This place is full of juvenile superficial idiocy, It's a mystery, I blame the members".
For a half-chink you really are bad at math.
This thread is a good example, you can play dumb and misdirect all you want.
Look at the bigger picture.
A retard complains about gendanken, gendanken gets punished. She didn't leave, but she's at least discouraged, if it kept up I'm sure she'd lose interest and leave. Lucifer's angel is rewarded for being a moron.
What's with the high percentage of retards? Gee, I don't know.
Fucking hell, you are boring and very very lame, but you aren't that stupid.
You know, I'm not even sure all these idiots are truely idiots, they've just learned that acting like an idiot is allowed and not acting like an idiot is not.
From you, you've trained them, and then you complain?
Fuck off...
Effervescing something
Lou, you never really could tell the difference, so—
—I would suggest the good doctor consider a dose of his own remedy.
Someday you might actually rise to the level of being a headache. For now, though, you're something of an elephant in the room.
Dr. Lou Natic said:
Lou, you never really could tell the difference, so—
—I would suggest the good doctor consider a dose of his own remedy.
Someday you might actually rise to the level of being a headache. For now, though, you're something of an elephant in the room.
Actually, jackass, I never have. My comments are about islam as practiced and possible connections to literalist islamic theology. I realize this is kind of a subtle difference for you, but consider it anyway. Or, hell: just surf back to myspace and drool over Gen's profile, wishing for something you can't have.
So ask yourself why exactly did I start really having it out with Sam? Because she's a muslim? Or because she started posting shit I considered religious fascism? I got along fine with Zak and Insom; yet not DH. Amazingly enough, even Foley got this difference towards the end of his unsteady tenure, but in the classic tradition of the not-too-diligent thinker, you've written in your head my stipulation to whatever points make you feel better, or more solid in your dogma, or maybe just to the point you don't have to think at.
Actually, hypocrite, I'm neither. But maybe I should be giving you credit up to and including the point you can make, which would be here, seemingly. I tell you what: you just run along and find that spot where I've branded all muslims instead of political islam and its foundation in islamic literalism, and I'll be ever so quick to apologize. Let me know if you need me to explain those terms.
Right, right. So in my hypocrisy, I surely must have brand-labelled all muslims, or used some derogatory term for them equivalent to "the Jew" as Gendanken likes to put it. Because, of course, I don't know any muslims, have no dealings with them, have none working in my lab, even, you utter ignoramus. But I'm out to git 'em. Sad.
When's the last time you showed up to defend his racist arguments? Ah, but if it's Gen it's different. Sure, sure: I'm the hypocrite.
Ever read an OP? Maybe? Let me know. I promise to seem interested, you semi-intellectual reject. And yet, too, I still can differentiate actual hyperbole - which you're spouting - from actual bigotry, which was Gen's bag. So what's your next point, if any? Waa, waa, my wannabe girlfriend lost her modship 'cause she was an offensive douchebag? Cry on.
Best regards,
Geoff
Notes on the difference
Something about being able to tell the difference goes here.
I would ask you to consider a comparison:
Now, call me crazy if you want. (You've called me worse, I'm pretty sure.) But I would propose that there is a difference, as relates bigotry, between the argument that black people choose to be black and a deliberate play on words intended to address thoughtless hypersensitivity.
In fact, in explaining my perception of the difference, I actually feel a bit condescending because, frankly, it seems rather quite obvious, and in reminding you of the idiot-simple, I might end up being perceived as somehow calling you an idiot. Then again, perhaps it's a cultural thing that jew cannot rightly be expected to recognize straight away.
And, frankly, if I wanted to call you an idiot, I would call you an idiot.
GeoffP said:
Something about being able to tell the difference goes here.
I would ask you to consider a comparison:
• Black people choose to be black. One of my favorite BMs was when Max, in getting pissed off that I wouldn't fulfill a political-correctness quota and say a minimum number of nice things about the police whenever I discussed things cops did wrong, actually tried to assert that disapproving of someone's violation of a voluntary oath is akin to hating someone for the color of their skin. I asked him where I can apply to be a black man. And I do wonder about the benefits package. Oh, and how many weeks off from being a black man would I get that way? He never did give me an answer. I would posit that there is a difference about one's moral/ethical obligations between something you are by nature and something you choose to be.
• The Jew. Perhaps this phenomenon is strictly American, but among our diverse—and sometimes strange—spoken accents are various conditions whereby the word "you" becomes "jew". Some might be familiar with the written phrase "didja". As in, "You didn't think of that, didja?" I've heard non-Americans use the word, too. But we have a variation, and perhaps you do, too. "Didjew". As in, "Didjew finish folding the laundry?" We also use the words "toldja" and "toldjew". Inevitably, though, you will encounter this kind of jew in its pure form. "Jew gotta problem?" Or, "Jew wanna take it outside?"
• The Jew. Perhaps this phenomenon is strictly American, but among our diverse—and sometimes strange—spoken accents are various conditions whereby the word "you" becomes "jew". Some might be familiar with the written phrase "didja". As in, "You didn't think of that, didja?" I've heard non-Americans use the word, too. But we have a variation, and perhaps you do, too. "Didjew". As in, "Didjew finish folding the laundry?" We also use the words "toldja" and "toldjew". Inevitably, though, you will encounter this kind of jew in its pure form. "Jew gotta problem?" Or, "Jew wanna take it outside?"
Now, call me crazy if you want. (You've called me worse, I'm pretty sure.) But I would propose that there is a difference, as relates bigotry, between the argument that black people choose to be black and a deliberate play on words intended to address thoughtless hypersensitivity.
In fact, in explaining my perception of the difference, I actually feel a bit condescending because, frankly, it seems rather quite obvious, and in reminding you of the idiot-simple, I might end up being perceived as somehow calling you an idiot. Then again, perhaps it's a cultural thing that jew cannot rightly be expected to recognize straight away.
And, frankly, if I wanted to call you an idiot, I would call you an idiot.
This... is clearly the output of an online insult generator. I thought you were both supposed to be smart?
Anyway: long-dead civilisations. Online attraction flowered and... spilled over into the meatspace? A meeting of great minds, it could have been so beautiful BUT... something went horribly wrong, and there was a rejection. A lover spurned still gorges himself on its bitter fruit.
Tell Sciforums' self-appointed historiographer the full uncensored story in all its raw, excruciating detail.
gendanken: you start.
Malekas: you be quiet.
Last edited:
Neither did I. Did he say anything new, or was it just the same old speil: "You're dishonest, la la la, bla bla bla, fap fap fap."
It's wonderful when they're all allowed to roam freely.
Fuckin' lame.
Thread closed!
And BTW, official warning for Dr Lou Natic for posting racial slurs.
Thread closed!
And BTW, official warning for Dr Lou Natic for posting racial slurs.
- Status