Scott1328 wrote:DD fingered rEvolutionist...

I haz been raped??
Scott1328 wrote:DD fingered rEvolutionist...
And you loved every second of it!rEvolutionist wrote:Scott1328 wrote:DD fingered rEvolutionist...![]()
I haz been raped??
Well, you did say you were going to do that very thing and pin it on some one else...rEvolutionist wrote:You cunts!How could so many people think that I would be that shit??? Fuckers. At least Bill knows me well enough.
It's obviously a Christian troll. I never had much to do with debunking religionists, so I couldn't say who it is. But it's clearly someone who's been done over by Hack and Cali before. If I had to guess on who it would be via who I know, I would say either Hugin (because of the pathetic whiney style), or Seth coz he loves stirring up atheist/theist shit.
You were asking for it. You always are.rEvolutionist wrote:Scott1328 wrote:DD fingered rEvolutionist...![]()
I haz been raped??
What are you talking about? I asked the mods what part of my long post was against the rules because I didn't know how it violated the rules. They locked the thread and told me that they'll put through an appeal for me, which is unhelpful as I don't understand what I'm appealing since I don't know what I said that was against the rules.surreptitious57 wrote:I love the way how Samsa has all the evidence at his disposal to prove his case.
Nobody is asking for perfection but just because something is imperfect doesn't mean we have to accept those imperfections and never question them. The massive flaws with the inflammatory rule have been raised constantly by multiple people and the mods refuse to even discuss it.surreptitious57 wrote:He seems to be unaware of the fact that there will be variation of interpretation as
regards the FUA because that is just human nature. For no matter how watertight a particular rule is there is always going to be that. No system is perfect because
it is designed by imperfect beings so has imperfection in it by default.
It's not difficult to stay within the rules when the rules are applied fairly. Supposedly I was sanctioned for saying that I hadn't seen Scarlett post anything of substance to the forum and I quoted Cali making the exact same remark to another user. I'm sanctioned and he isn't.surreptitious57 wrote:Beatsong was absolutely right to explain the basics to him : namely that it is not that difficult
to stay within the FUA. I manage it without even having to try and so does the vast majority of the forum as well.
I didn't "move the goalposts" (I don't think you understand what that term means), I showed you why your explanation cannot be true assuming consistency on the part of the mods.surreptitious57 wrote:When I provided evidence of provocation on his part
towards Scarlett instead of accepting responsibility for it he chose to move the goal posts.
No "mock" surprise, just genuine surprise that someone could be stupid enough to think that attacking someone's behavior is against the rules, or is done as an "attempt to inflame".surreptitious57 wrote:He specifically referred to her behaviour as shitty and so I said that this was evidence of intent to inflame which is against the FUA. But instead of accepting responsibility for this he completely denied it by invoking mock surprise instead.
Yes, to improve the forum. We've gone over this and you said you give me your full support.surreptitious57 wrote:When
you have a situation like this it is obvious that there is ulterior motive at work.
We have history because she is a horrible person who harassed me for months. Her opinion on feminism is irrelevant.surreptitious57 wrote:It should also be pointed out that Scarlett and Samsa have a history because of their very
different views on feminism.
If it's not rocket science then it'll be easy for you to present a single coherent argument or some evidence to support your position. This isn't rocket science, present your evidence or shut the fuck up.surreptitious57 wrote:But the irony of someone demanding accountability when he will not accept it for himself appears to be completely lost on him. And he can
do better that now. As I said before : he is an intelligent man and this is not rocket science
Are you serious? You're the biggest fanboy on the forum. Your irrational defence of anything the mods do must even be grating on the mods themselves.surreptitious57 wrote:Now while I may take issue with anyone and on anything over at Rat Skep I do not do so for any other reason other than I believe them to be wrong. I do not do group think and so my motivation cannot be questioned.
But you also believe that ideas cannot be questioned (i.e. we can't refer to other people's behavior as shitty).surreptitious57 wrote:I am only interested in ideas not individuals.
You keep accusing me of ulterior motives so how about you stop being so coy and raise your concerns.surreptitious57 wrote:However that does not stop me from recognising the worth of someones contribution to the forum. And so while I fundamentally disagree with Samsa here and question his modus operandi I can see also that he is one of the best members we have and it would be a terrible blow to Rat Skep now were he to leave.
It's also up to the mods because they keep sanctioning me for things they can't even explain themselves.surreptitious57 wrote:That is a decision ultimately for him so just saying
The reason why you don't have much trouble is that you haven't been identified as a "troll" by the mods so most of your infractions (like the one I mention above) will be overlooked.surreptitious57 wrote:I do not really have a problem with the moderation there. I manage to keep within the rules ninety nine per cent of the time and cannot see why others cannot do the same. However the nature of Rat Skep is that she has a tendency to attract the highly opinionated and when you have enough of them one should not be too surprised
to see sparks fly.
How about instead of "enjoying the drama" you actually attempt to contribute something positive to the forum and help improve the way it functions, like I do?surreptitious57 wrote:It is fun sometimes to watch the latest mega drama unfold but it can get a bit predictable after a while. But so be it. I hope we can actually attract more diversity and those that are already there manage to stay and try not to get too intense now up because their rather subjective way of looking at things may be seriously compromising their judgement. Anyway that is my two cents for what it is worth. Time to return to the mothership. But I shall be back later to read Samsas inevitable response to this post if I have nothing better to do ha ha ha
I can't win! I'd like to think my trolling level is a little bit higher than that clown.Scott1328 wrote:Well, you did say you were going to do that very thing and pin it on some one else...rEvolutionist wrote:You cunts!How could so many people think that I would be that shit??? Fuckers. At least Bill knows me well enough.
It's obviously a Christian troll. I never had much to do with debunking religionists, so I couldn't say who it is. But it's clearly someone who's been done over by Hack and Cali before. If I had to guess on who it would be via who I know, I would say either Hugin (because of the pathetic whiney style), or Seth coz he loves stirring up atheist/theist shit.
STOP RAPING ME WITH YOUR WORDS!!1FBM wrote:You were asking for it. You always are.rEvolutionist wrote:Scott1328 wrote:DD fingered rEvolutionist...![]()
I haz been raped??
surreptitious57 wrote:SORRY FOR THINKING THAT IT WAS YOU REV BUT AS
YOU KNOW BY NOW YOU ARE THE OBVIOUS SUSPECT
FOR THS SORT OF THING SO NO HARD FEELINGS MAN
I keep within the FUA the vast majority of the time. I have received one advisory and that is it. I disagreed with it and referenced my objection and then I let itMr.Samsa wrote:
How about instead of enjoying the drama you actually attempt to contribute something positive to the forum and help improve the way it functions like I do ?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests