Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:59 pm wrote:Please tell me you're kidding, Brekin. Even YOU can't be that big of a freaking sissy-pants.
Yes, to use your vernacular, I am that big of a freaking sissy-pants.
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:59 pm wrote:Please tell me you're kidding, Brekin. Even YOU can't be that big of a freaking sissy-pants.
Jerky » Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:59 am wrote:Please tell me you're kidding, Brekin. Even YOU can't be that big of a freaking sissy-pants.
YOPJ
I don't have a complex about masturbation.
In fact, why don't you give me your home address so I come masturbate right in your smug little face?
Love,
Jerky
Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:59 pm wrote:Please tell me you're kidding, Brekin. Even YOU can't be that big of a freaking sissy-pants.
YOPJ
Jerky wrote:She has agreed to be on her best behavior and simply IGNORE anybody who tries to goad her into getting herself in trouble again.
YOPJ
C_w wrote:Sorry to name names, but c2w and barracuda are the primary suspects wrt those who can belabour and belittle with impunity.
I wrote:Examples, or you're just throwing a rock then running away. I have no problem with being called out for what I do.
Show me where I instigated an off-topic dispute and then belabored my side of it. as opposed to "where I was insulted for my presumed reading habits, sheep-like conformity or political views when (a) nothing I'd said represented any of those things; and (b) the points I had made were being ignored, then objected when the person who hurled those rocks ran away without being helpful enough to me to show me where I'd erred."
Because if I have, I want to know. And if I haven't, you're out of line to name me and then scamper off. I don't do it to you. Or to anyone. It's not fair. Kafkasesqe, as a matter of fact.
Or you could just try not insulting me. If you did, I wouldn't have anything else to say.
I think stickdog and Mac already "showed you" where you belabored your side of it. I don't want to engage any more than I already have. Everyone knows what I'm talking about, including you, so I don't need to elaborate.
I wrote:No they didn't. I have no idea what you're talking about. Where? Please show me.
Thanks
Canadian_watcher » Sat May 18, 2013 8:04 pm wrote:compared2what? wrote:No they didn't. I have no idea what you're talking about. Where? Please show me.
Thanks.
okay..
right here, right now. Just forget it, would you?
Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:48 pm wrote:C2W, I understand your concerns, but if you and her clashed so much, why not just put her on IGNORE? Wouldn't that be a better solution than just having one side stay, the other go, due to personal differences that keep popping up?
I mean, I understand that online forums aren't a democracy. I know that. My concern is that I truly believe that this forum would be a lesser place, for ME, with Canadian_Watcher gone. And it seems to me that people are getting attacked and banned for making JOKES (however harsh) while others are allowed to make obvious and bald-faced insinuations and insults without anybody batting an eyelash.
surely you're not suggesting that every report ever put out about the dangers of thimeresol (sp?) has been conducted by people with some kind of bizarre fetish for anally bleaching the mentally retarded? Because I can assure you that is most definitely NOT the case.
compared2what? » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:12 pm wrote:I want her to come back on whatever terms are agreeable to everybody...
Rory wrote:..But this farce is a step to far. I feel like I have insight into the characters and motivations of some of the regular forum users but this is a clusterfuck of narcissism masquerading as concern for others.
Mods ban people then choose to unban and the net positive result, longterm will be exactly as before.
C-W will be banned again - it is in her nature to take aggressive umbrage and flame her perceived foes. I think inviting her back is perverse - you will all get to revisit this same hand-wringing and meta analysis down the road.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
wintler2 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:28 pm wrote:compared2what? » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:12 pm wrote:I want her to come back on whatever terms are agreeable to everybody...
Cunning recourse to impossibility, i like it!
Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:05 pm wrote:And I am requesting that Brekin and Cuda be banned for accusing RollingStone of being a sock-puppet and piling up on him or her, just because they don't like the fact that he or she signed up to vote in the Canadian_Watcher poll.
"Canadian_watcher' wrote:compared2what? wrote:"Canadian_watcher' wrote:
Joe Hillshoist wrote:
Mask wrote:So, again, why would they go to such risky length when they can just blow some random people* up, given the moral compass of any likely deep-state actors involved (as semper said)?
Just in case anyone missed it.
I just answered it two or three posts ago, Joe. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT.
But your response didn't include an explanation of what made the risky lengths worthwhile when there were more expedient alternatives.
So that's still an open question.
last one ever, miss thing.
Anything i might say on that matter would be conjecture, and I'm told you people want facts. You want them, you go look for them. Hint: you can't find them in your email from your friends who all think the same way you do. that is if you have any fucking friends.
Return to Ask Admin [old version/not in use]
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests