Hide Comments Below
  • -3
  • -2
  • -1
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • off
  • crusader brings nothing positive to this site. His only effect is negative. If he were voted off, I certainly wouldn't be crying.



    Comment 0
    Cool
  • vote cool
  • vote uncool
  • Terms of Service Violation
  • strike inappropriate
  • not inappropriate
  • Other
  • sunlight
  • kick from thread
  • get permlink
  • Tagged with : butt hurt , butthurt , grahams rocks , happy nancy , meta , spam , troll , whine , whinefest

    What are tags?
    Comments 401 through 537 of 537 shown. Page 1 2 3 4 5
    someone who may or may not be Anonymous 2007-10-25 23:31:28.0 login to vote score 4
    untrustworthy: Are people afraid of the other opinions here? Seriously? Are we that weak?

    Look its not the views he posts its his attempts to fuck with
    the site using the queue,Alts,proxies.But in the end if he and his little buddies from free republic want the site that bad I'll move on
    no harm no fail.And you can enjoy basking in all that wonderful
    far right goodness.But think about this for a second if ejO
    gets his way will your contrary views be allowed or will they
    STFU you as well.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:31:36.0 login to vote score 5
    untrustworthy: My experience with him differs. I don't know why. But perhaps the fact that I give him the benefit of the doubt results in better results.

    Did you read his fucking posts in this thread? I know you didn't. Take a break from this argument you're having with incomplete information and take a look at his wild accusations and idiocy.
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-25 23:31:58.0 login to vote score 0
    vaylon kenadell: You didn't learn a goddamn thing the other day when leperflesh pointed out what you're doing, did you?

    Not true. I understood that you are incapable of understanding a perspective which differs from your own. And you are special in that lack of capability. That is significant given the number of people I've engaged in debate, which you seem to be incapable of understanding.
    mathmatix 198 2007-10-25 23:32:46.0 login to vote score 0
    vaylon kenadell: You didn't learn a goddamn thing the other day when leperflesh pointed out what you're doing, did you?

    Oh, of all the people to point out someone didnt learn anything, its funny it comes from you....
    vaylon kenadell: I'll be honest -- obviously I'm not as intelligent as I claim, or else I would have left by now and found better ways to waste my time than by responding to your posts, such as bashing my head repeatedly against a brick wall.

    Yeah, isnt there some shitting dicknipples or hentai you should be fapping too by now?
    grahams 5 2007-10-25 23:32:53.0 login to vote score 6
    untrustworthy: My experience with him differs. I don't know why. But perhaps the fact that I give him the benefit of the doubt results in better results.

    I've found myself agreeing with him at times. It just bothers me that he dodges any question that might expose hypocrisy in one of his arguments.
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-25 23:32:56.0 login to vote score 0
    mathmatix: too much to ask, or is today your first day here?

    I'm an idealist. If that is wrong, then I'll die being wrong.
    howie_feltersnatch 11 2007-10-25 23:33:33.0 login to vote score 0
    ahhhh halp me my frontpage is borked
    ratfucker 470 2007-10-25 23:33:35.0 login to vote score 1
    untrustworthy: Ever heard of the high road?

    No, please explain. My feeble mind isn't capable of understanding the rather bipolar reasoning for your comments.
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-25 23:33:53.0 login to vote score 0
    Anonymous: Look its not the views he posts its his attempts to fuck with
    the site using the queue,Alts,proxies.But in the end if he and his little buddies from free republic want the site that bad I'll move on
    no harm no fail.And you can enjoy basking in all that wonderful
    far right goodness.But think about this for a second if ejO
    gets his way will your contrary views be allowed or will they
    STFU you as well.


    Cry me a river, crybaby.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:33:53.0 login to vote score 5
    grahams: I've found myself agreeing with him at times. It just bothers me that he dodges any question that might expose hypocrisy in one of his arguments.

    He's a propagandist. Nothing more. He has an agenda and he supports it by any means necessary. That includes alts, and meta-attacks.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:34:11.0 login to vote score 3
    untrustworthy: Cry me a river, crybaby.

    He's got a point, quit being a cock.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:34:30.0 login to vote score 1
    howie_feltersnatch: ahhhh halp me my frontpage is borked

    Meta's been quarantined-- check the bottom of the page.
    grahams 5 2007-10-25 23:34:54.0 login to vote score 4
    sunofsam: He's a propagandist. Nothing more. He has an agenda and he supports it by any means necessary. That includes alts, and meta-attacks.

    And i'm more than happy to let him argue his point, but filling up the site with meta-shit isn't fair play. I wouldn't put it past him to have submitted this disucssion himself.
    mathmatix 198 2007-10-25 23:34:58.0 login to vote score 3
    untrustworthy: I'm an idealist. If that is wrong, then I'll die being wrong.

    It was a joke friend, twenty posts ago we were in a circle jerk together....
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-25 23:35:19.0 login to vote score 0
    sunofsam: Did you read his fucking posts in this thread? I know you didn't. Take a break from this argument you're having with incomplete information and take a look at his wild accusations and idiocy.

    I participate more than most. Or more than all. I know what goes on. And I know that the left squashes the right more often than anything. And this is someone who dislikes both paries with great distaste.
    michaelmoron 934 2007-10-25 23:36:02.0 login to vote score 0
    ratfucker: I guess where I draw the line is hypocrisy. They demand to be treated fairly (what they deem is fair to them, having the site run on their terms only, anything outside of that is a LIEBURL conspiracy and makes this place R*GG*D) but don't treat other people on this site how they expect to be treated. Case in point, Crusader has bitched about his posts being voted down... yet he's the only poster in this thread (I've seen so far) who has a Nancy Metric, which got pointed out to me by someone else in IRC. MM has done the exact same thing in the past. My basic thought is "Why continue to treat them with fairness and respect when they refuse to do the same for anyone else?"


    I've told you this before: You can vote people down and not get a nancy metric. Just because someone has a 0 nancy metric doesn't mean they don't vote people down.
    It just means they weren't reversed. Why can't you seem to understand this simple concept?


    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-25 23:36:09.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: I've found myself agreeing with him at times. It just bothers me that he dodges any question that might expose hypocrisy in one of his arguments.

    So be it. Call him on it. That's the point of free speech.
    ratfucker 470 2007-10-25 23:36:15.0 login to vote score 3
    sunofsam: He's a propagandist. Nothing more. He has an agenda and he supports it by any means necessary. That includes alts, and meta-attacks.

    Grahams could pretty much prove it to UTW right here, right now, by exposing who else Crusader is known as. Funny as it is, it's both worrisome and comforting that he's willing to protect the privacy of someone who's shit on him THAT much.

    Not that I would ever want to try to find out what it would take before Grahams would finally kick someone in the nuts.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:36:46.0 login to vote score 6
    untrustworthy: I participate more than most. Or more than all. I know what goes on. And I know that the left squashes the right more often than anything. And this is someone who dislikes both paries with great distaste.

    STFU and read his posts. THIS IS NOT ABOUT DISSENTING VIEWPOINTS, THIS IS ABOUT HIM TRYING TO ABUSE THE SYSTEM TO ADVANCE HIS AGENDA.

    READ THE FUCKING THREAD
    READ THE FUCKING THREAD
    READ THE FUCKING THREAD
    READ THE FUCKING THREAD
    READ THE FUCKING THREAD
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-25 23:36:54.0 login to vote score 0
    sunofsam: He's got a point, quit being a cock.

    Forgive me if I don't give much credence to the anonypansies.
    ratfucker 470 2007-10-25 23:37:09.0 login to vote score 2
    grahams: And i'm more than happy to let him argue his point, but filling up the site with meta-shit isn't fair play. I wouldn't put it past him to have submitted this disucssion himself.

    He admitted to it, further up the thread. Crusader submitted this thread but the alt headline won... which correctly surmised that The Crusader submitted it in the first place. Go figure, eh?
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-25 23:37:44.0 login to vote score 0
    mathmatix: It was a joke friend, twenty posts ago we were in a circle jerk together....

    Sorry. I'm in defense mode right now.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:38:11.0 login to vote score 1
    untrustworthy: Forgive me if I don't give much credence to the anonypansies.

    If I had the choice I would post purely as Anonymous.
    howie_feltersnatch 11 2007-10-25 23:38:35.0 login to vote score 0
    sunofsam: Meta's been quarantined-- check the bottom of the page.

    Ah, now I can have meta in a separate tab. Good call. Confused me for a while. I figured the meta threads would just be visible with the rest of the headlines when clicking "shown". Seeing only two meta threads and no other headlines on the frontpage scared me.
    ratfucker 470 2007-10-25 23:38:44.0 login to vote score 2
    michaelmoron: I've told you this before: You can vote people down and not get a nancy metric. Just because someone has a 0 nancy metric doesn't mean they don't vote people down.
    It just means they weren't reversed. Why can't you seem to understand this simple concept?


    Are you sure you're just not upset that you can't get a Nancy Metric of 30+ again?
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:38:45.0 login to vote score 3
    untrustworthy: Sorry. I'm in defense mode right now.

    Well stop being defensive and start being rational.
    grahams 5 2007-10-25 23:39:12.0 login to vote score 5
    untrustworthy: So be it. Call him on it. That's the point of free speech.

    Look at the rape thread from the other day. He dodged all kinds of questions about the conflicts between his stance that women need men to protect them, but that prostitutes shouldn't get that protection.

    Lots of people called him on it, repeatedly, but he kept parroting the same answers. Then he starts crying about being persecuted.
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-25 23:39:27.0 login to vote score 0
    sunofsam: STFU and read his posts. THIS IS NOT ABOUT DISSENTING VIEWPOINTS, THIS IS ABOUT HIM TRYING TO ABUSE THE SYSTEM TO ADVANCE HIS AGENDA.

    READ THE FUCKING THREAD
    READ THE FUCKING THREAD
    READ THE FUCKING THREAD
    READ THE FUCKING THREAD
    READ THE FUCKING THREAD


    That's the system. The reality is that the site has a bias. I will fight that bias to try to make it more equal.
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-25 23:39:48.0 login to vote score 0
    sunofsam: If I had the choice I would post purely as Anonymous.

    Why?
    grahams 5 2007-10-25 23:40:00.0 login to vote score 2
    howie_feltersnatch: Ah, now I can have meta in a separate tab. Good call. Confused me for a while. I figured the meta threads would just be visible with the rest of the headlines when clicking "shown". Seeing only two meta threads and no other headlines on the frontpage scared me.

    Yeah i rethought the way i was going to do that. Making the meta display show *just* meta threads makes it much easier to see if something is mistagged.
    bluegargoyle 635 2007-10-25 23:40:10.0 login to vote score 5
    untrustworthy: Ever heard of the high road?

    To be perfectly fair, it doesn't really appear that Crusader/EJ0 has. SunofSam and I have come to blows on this site before (at least once due to a misunderstanding on my own part), and he himself doesn't agree with me all the time. But I think he has a good point about Crusader.

    Again, I really do agree with you that bN need to have right wingers in the spectrum, and I would agree that we tilt to the left for the most part. But I think most websites tend to have a bent one way or another. To the extent that any left wingers are posting over at FreeRepublic (and complaining about how conservative it is), well they are kind of asking for it, aren't they?

    Nobody forces EJ0 to come here and shit all over everything, make veiled threats about he wants to ruin the site, and accuse everyone else of conspiring against him and downvoting his trolling crap when that's actually what he himself is doing.

    It's great that you respect balance and see it for the value that it has, but I think the point that several people here are making is that you are defending a guy who doesn't share that same respect. And he isn't really being very subtle about it.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:40:14.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: Why?

    Why not?
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-25 23:40:32.0 login to vote score 0
    sunofsam: Well stop being defensive and start being rational.

    What's your issue with me? I'll be happy to address it. I'm addressing all sorts of crap right now.
    grahams 5 2007-10-25 23:41:06.0 login to vote score 1
    untrustworthy: That's the system. The reality is that the site has a bias. I will fight that bias to try to make it more equal.

    Actually I think the site is a good balance of its users, in fact more right wing stuff (proportionally) probably goes through.

    What you need to correct is the balance of users :)
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-25 23:42:06.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: Look at the rape thread from the other day. He dodged all kinds of questions about the conflicts between his stance that women need men to protect them, but that prostitutes shouldn't get that protection.

    Lots of people called him on it, repeatedly, but he kept parroting the same answers. Then he starts crying about being persecuted.


    Yet he challenged people to defend their point of view. I don't think that was accidental. I think his devil's advocate point of view was obvious. The fact that people missed that was somewhat amusing to me.
    vaylon kenadell 201 2007-10-25 23:42:10.0 login to vote score 4
    untrustworthy: Not true. I understood that you are incapable of understanding a perspective which differs from your own. And you are special in that lack of capability. That is significant given the number of people I've engaged in debate, which you seem to be incapable of understanding.

    Oh, untrustworthy, you intellectually dishonest sophist. What you call "intolerant," I call "calling out stupid ideas as such." We've already discussed your inability to admit that you or an idea is wrong before, remember, or shall I have to quote it again to you? In fact, I think I should, just for good measure.

    From this thread:

    untrustworthy: If we aren't willing to consider ideas outside of our norm or things that might seem illogical to us, then why the hell are we here? Just to hear ourselves talk?

    leperflesh: Urrrgh, I thought I was done with this, but I can't leave that dangling, oh no sir.

    One should consider an "idea" for as long as it takes to spot that it is "wrong" and then "reject it" for being "wrong". Which, presumably, is exactly what Vaylon did, and you ought to have done.

    I think it's unfair to accuse someone of being close-minded, when they reject a fallacious argument. It's worse when that fallacious argument is also very dangerous.

    It's like, if some space shuttle engineer at NASA is showing you his design for the rocket engines on a blackboard, and you notice a spot where it says "Thrust: 2+2=9".

    You do not continue to "consider" his "ideas". You point out that, oh shit dude, look: that fucking engine is broke. And if the fucker can't see the problem there, you've got to bring into question any other designs he's been using.

    And any other dude who stands there going "hey, man, 2+2=9, that's an idea we should consider, don't be so close-minded", well, that guys an imbicile, and it's entirely appropriate to be outraged by his behavior. Even if he is apparently only interested in the idea as an intellectual exercise.


    * * *

    Don't you get it, man? You are utterly full of bullshit, and in a just and perfect world, the thread I quoted just now would alert everyone to the fact that you are full of bullshit, and they would no longer believe a single damn word you say. Unfortunately, we don't live in a just and perfect world, and so bullshit artists such as yourself continue to have free reign, uncalled-out on the bullshit that they spew, incapable of admitting that they were wrong. You and people like you, untrustworthy, are what's responsible at the deep, rotted core of not only this website, but this entire nation.

    And that's why you hate my guts now and have to levy such hypocritical personal attacks against me: because I have the courage to actually stand up for my convictions, call out bullshit as being such, and call you what you are: an utterly incapable, amoral sophist.
    michaelmoron 934 2007-10-25 23:42:30.0 login to vote score 0
    ratfucker: Are you sure you're just not upset that you can't get a Nancy Metric of 30+ again?

    That's what you don't understand. A nancy metric is a sign that you DID NOT SUCCEED IN OPPRESSING anyone. It says you tried to vote someone down, and the community reversed you.
    The cabal members that zap posts left and right will not have a nancy metric, since they were not reversed.
    You fail logic 101 on this one, my rodent humping friend.

    mathmatix 198 2007-10-25 23:43:20.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: Sorry. I'm in defense mode right now.

    We're actually of same mind on this, so dont stress. I've just given up for the night thinking anything might penetrate the skulls of those targeted....


    But then again, maybe I'm not creative or intelligent enough....


    grahams 5 2007-10-25 23:44:24.0 login to vote score 4
    untrustworthy: Yet he challenged people to defend their point of view.

    Which is BS when you won't defend your own pov
    grahams 5 2007-10-25 23:45:00.0 login to vote score 2
    michaelmoron: That's what you don't understand. A nancy metric is a sign that you DID NOT SUCCEED IN OPPRESSING anyone. It says you tried to vote someone down, and the community reversed you.
    The cabal members that zap posts left and right will not have a nancy metric, since they were not reversed.
    You fail logic 101 on this one, my rodent humping friend.


    There a handy page that shows who's being oppressed.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:45:05.0 login to vote score 1
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:45:57.0 login to vote score 3
    untrustworthy: Yet he challenged people to defend their point of view. I don't think that was accidental. I think his devil's advocate point of view was obvious. The fact that people missed that was somewhat amusing to me.


    mathmatix 198 2007-10-25 23:46:30.0 login to vote score 0
    vaylon kenadell: What you call "intolerant," I call "calling out stupid ideas as such.

    What makes them stupid ideas? Your opinion. OH, so therefore we should cater the site to your opinion of stupid and not stupid. thats great to know. Especially since you've had a big hand in meta stupidity over the last week or so. KUDOS SIR, I applaud your consistency in the issues.

    vaylon kenadell: I quoted just now would alert everyone to the fact that you are full of bullshit, and they would no longer believe a single damn word you say. Unfortunately, we don't live in a just and perfect world, and so bullshit artists such as yourself continue to have free reign, uncalled-out on the bullshit that they spew, incapable of admitting that they were wrong

    Thats a great example of tolerance of opposing viewpoints.

    vaylon kenadell: I have the courage to actually stand up for my convictions,

    You remind me of the take my ball and go home kid growing up. Its either your way or no way. Just because you find something stupid, or ill informed, doesnt make it such.
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-25 23:46:38.0 login to vote score 1
    bluegargoyle: To be perfectly fair, it doesn't really appear that Crusader/EJ0 has. SunofSam and I have come to blows on this site before (at least once due to a misunderstanding on my own part), and he himself doesn't agree with me all the time. But I think he has a good point about Crusader.

    Again, I really do agree with you that bN need to have right wingers in the spectrum, and I would agree that we tilt to the left for the most part. But I think most websites tend to have a bent one way or another. To the extent that any left wingers are posting over at FreeRepublic (and complaining about how conservative it is), well they are kind of asking for it, aren't they?

    Nobody forces EJ0 to come here and shit all over everything, make veiled threats about he wants to ruin the site, and accuse everyone else of conspiring against him and downvoting his trolling crap when that's actually what he himself is doing.

    It's great that you respect balance and see it for the value that it has, but I think the point that several people here are making is that you are defending a guy who doesn't share that same respect. And he isn't really being very subtle about it.


    I've had conversations with these people you have issues with. Nobody should fear or hate them. They are only trying to challenge all of us. And if they didn't do it, I would. It isn't to piss people off. It's to make us challenge our own ideas. If you feel threatened, then you should be threatened. But that is to everyone's benefit.

    We aren't politicians. We aren't policy makers. We're just people. If you're afraid of someone challenging your point of view, then don't come here. If you are confident in your objectivity, then listen.
    ratfucker 470 2007-10-25 23:46:54.0 login to vote score 4
    bluegargoyle: To be perfectly fair, it doesn't really appear that Crusader/EJ0 has. SunofSam and I have come to blows on this site before (at least once due to a misunderstanding on my own part), and he himself doesn't agree with me all the time. But I think he has a good point about Crusader.

    Again, I really do agree with you that bN need to have right wingers in the spectrum, and I would agree that we tilt to the left for the most part. But I think most websites tend to have a bent one way or another. To the extent that any left wingers are posting over at FreeRepublic (and complaining about how conservative it is), well they are kind of asking for it, aren't they?

    Nobody forces EJ0 to come here and shit all over everything, make veiled threats about he wants to ruin the site, and accuse everyone else of conspiring against him and downvoting his trolling crap when that's actually what he himself is doing.

    It's great that you respect balance and see it for the value that it has, but I think the point that several people here are making is that you are defending a guy who doesn't share that same respect. And he isn't really being very subtle about it.


    This.

    Seriously, Untrustworthy... we've had our moments in the past. If you want to argue and play contrarian, great. But please, read the thread if you haven't bothered to do so and get the partisan bent out of your head and look at it from the other perspective:

    We have someone here who is making threats against the site, shitting whenever he can, lying about his behaviour and you still want to defend him? Sorry man, but there IS such a thing as an indefensible person.

    You've made several remarks since posting in this thread, Untrustworthy, that completely belie what has actually happened tonight and in the past.

    I know you're not as short-sighted as your last few posts make you seem, so let me know when you're able to look at the whole picture and not limit your responses to a few ideological soundbites.
    ratfucker 470 2007-10-25 23:48:35.0 login to vote score 3
    michaelmoron: That's what you don't understand. A nancy metric is a sign that you DID NOT SUCCEED IN OPPRESSING anyone. It says you tried to vote someone down, and the community reversed you.
    The cabal members that zap posts left and right will not have a nancy metric, since they were not reversed.
    You fail logic 101 on this one, my rodent humping friend.


    blah blah blah...
    whine, whine, whine...

    You're a nancy and you've been caught.

    Crusader is a nancy and he got caught.

    NEENER!!!

    *PLLBBTTT*

    Suck it, homo.
    vaylon kenadell 201 2007-10-25 23:49:47.0 login to vote score 2
    mathmatix: What makes them stupid ideas? Your opinion. OH, so therefore we should cater the site to your opinion of stupid and not stupid. thats great to know. Especially since you've had a big hand in meta stupidity over the last week or so. KUDOS SIR, I applaud your consistency in the issues.

    You don't get it, do you? This attitude is exactly why the trolls love this website: because you nor anyone else is willing to call their bullshit as being bullshit. However, you're more than willing to give them an audience and give them all the attention they could ever possibly hope so, and then you wonder why people like me are angry.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:50:12.0 login to vote score 6
    untrustworthy: I've had conversations with these people you have issues with. Nobody should fear or hate them. They are only trying to challenge all of us. And if they didn't do it, I would. It isn't to piss people off. It's to make us challenge our own ideas. If you feel threatened, then you should be threatened. But that is to everyone's benefit.

    We aren't politicians. We aren't policy makers. We're just people. If you're afraid of someone challenging your point of view, then don't come here. If you are confident in your objectivity, then listen.


    Bullshit. EJ0 is not challenging anyone. You look at him with rosey glasses. His arguments are shit. And you know this. He doesn't address pertinent points. He is vocal about attacking this site. He is a worthless piece of shit arguer worth nothing more than kicking around like a midget with a big mouth.

    He deserves no real respect, and his mind is far more closed that vaylon's.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:50:36.0 login to vote score 1
    vaylon kenadell: You don't get it, do you? This attitude is exactly why the trolls love this website: because you nor anyone else is willing to call their bullshit as being bullshit. However, you're more than willing to give them an audience and give them all the attention they could ever possibly hope so, and then you wonder why people like me are angry.

    UR A TROLL
    STFU
    grahams 5 2007-10-25 23:51:25.0 login to vote score 2
    michaelmoron: You fail logic 101 on this one, my rodent humping friend

    I'd disagree.

    Logically there's no way to find out who successfully oppressed someone, there's no consequences for the oppressor.

    However, the vast majority of downvoting gets corrected by the community, so it stands to reason that anyone that repeatedly tries to oppress someone will have at least some of their votes corrected and their nancy score adjusted.
    vaylon kenadell 201 2007-10-25 23:51:44.0 login to vote score 1
    sunofsam: He deserves no real respect, and his mind is far more closed that vaylon's.

    I think it's unfair to accuse someone of being close-minded, when they reject a fallacious argument. It's worse when that fallacious argument is also very dangerous.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:52:18.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: I'd disagree.

    Logically there's no way to find out who successfully oppressed someone, there's no consequences for the oppressor.

    However, the vast majority of downvoting gets corrected by the community, so it stands to reason that anyone that repeatedly tries to oppress someone will have at least some of their votes corrected and their nancy score adjusted.


    Yea, but you have to remember its the community that's oppressing the far righties here.
    mathmatix 198 2007-10-25 23:52:35.0 login to vote score 2
    vaylon kenadell: This attitude is exactly why the trolls love this website: because you nor anyone else is willing to call their bullshit as being bullshit.

    No I can call their shit bullshit... What I dont do is vote them down because I think they're stupid, posting rehashed talking points or partisan rhetoric, or just something off the wall.


    I can also act like an adult and ignore it when necessary. Or if you really want to call them on their bullshit, how bout be a lil more on topic and less iwth the blanket insults and "stupidity" claims. again, just because you think its stupid doesnt mean everyone else does.

    Like now, i'm going to act like an adult and go to bed.



    bluegargoyle 635 2007-10-25 23:52:44.0 login to vote score 3
    michaelmoron: That's what you don't understand. A nancy metric is a sign that you DID NOT SUCCEED IN OPPRESSING anyone. It says you tried to vote someone down, and the community reversed you.
    The cabal members that zap posts left and right will not have a nancy metric, since they were not reversed.
    You fail logic 101 on this one, my rodent humping friend.


    Just so I can get this straight then-

    When you vote down other members posts, it's troll-control. But when others vote stuff down that you agree with, THEN it's a vast conspiracy known as "the Cabaaaaaaaaaaal!" Yes?

    michaelmoron 934 2007-10-25 23:53:20.0 login to vote score 0
    ratfucker: blah blah blah...
    whine, whine, whine...
    You're a nancy and you've been caught.
    Crusader is a nancy and he got caught.
    NEENER!!!
    *PLLBBTTT*
    Suck it, homo.



    Well, "nancy" isn't a deragetory word to me. I know you throw it around like "n*gger" but it just has never been a word that means much to me despite the great importance you and others place on it...

    Now "suck it, homo" on the other hand... -1!

    hahaha j/k, mousebanger

    grahams 5 2007-10-25 23:53:57.0 login to vote score 3
    sunofsam: Yea, but you have to remember its the community that's oppressing the far righties here.

    The downvotes page analyzes the last 1000 comment votes posted and shows any comments which currently have a negative score. Very little of anything is getting oppressed, which makes most of this moot.
    mathmatix 198 2007-10-25 23:54:09.0 login to vote score 1
    vaylon kenadell: then you wonder why people like me are angry.

    I dont wonder why people like you get angry, you're going to bitch, moan and complain no matter what. Getting angry is a logical side effect.


    /now i'm going to bed.
    vaylon kenadell 201 2007-10-25 23:55:02.0 login to vote score 2
    sunofsam: Yea, but you have to remember its the community that's oppressing the far righties here.

    Oppressing? As far as I can tell, they have the right to say whatever they want, even if it's pure bullshit. Look at the downvoting page: it's blank. They're free to say whatever they want without fear of being voted down.

    If by "oppressing" you mean, "rightfully subjecting them to criticism," then you are grossly mistaken in your definition of "oppression."

    They only act like they're being persecuted because they're incapable of handling criticism of their points of view.
    someone who may or may not be Anonymous 2007-10-25 23:55:03.0 login to vote score 2
    untrustworthy: Forgive me if I don't give much credence to the anonypansies.

    I just don't trust you enough to post under my real name such as it is
    In all the threads I have lurked in it just seems like your the
    type of person to stalk me and I really don't need that kind of crap.
    vaylon kenadell 201 2007-10-25 23:56:18.0 login to vote score 0
    mathmatix: Like now, i'm going to act like an adult and go to bed.

    That's the most adult thing you've done the entire thread.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:56:45.0 login to vote score 0
    Hey grahams, since this is meta, can we kill the numerical limitation on anonymous posting since submitter can choose to enable or disable the comments?
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-25 23:56:54.0 login to vote score 0
    vaylon kenadell: Oh, untrustworthy, you intellectually dishonest sop... blah, blah, blah...

    And this is why you fail. You are intellectually incapable of stepping outside of your own opinion. And beyond that, you feel that it is necessary to lodge personal attacks against those you disagree with. It is not my fault that you can't see the world from a broad perspective. It is not my fault that you see things as only wrong or right.

    I will not suffer your intolerance any more. If you are happy with who you are then I'm happy for you. Few people achieve that goal. But I'm happy that I'm nothing like you. I enjoy contemplating different perspectives. I can't pigeon-hole myself into one single ideal. If I'm proven wrong on a point, then I'm happy to admit as such. In fact, I love to be proven wrong because that means that I've learned something. On the other hand, I think you can't stand the thought of being wrong. Your goal is to be right in your current conviction. I can't identify with that.

    So be it. You are you. And I can't identify with you. I don't like your outlook on life and you don't like mine. So be it.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:57:11.0 login to vote score 0
    vaylon kenadell: That's the most adult thing you've done the entire thread.

    The genius has spoken. Let it be recorded for all time as the Truth.
    grahams 5 2007-10-25 23:57:47.0 login to vote score 0
    sunofsam: Hey grahams, since this is meta, can we kill the numerical limitation on anonymous posting since submitter can choose to enable or disable the comments?

    Hmmm, i'm not sure. What would it gain? Do you find you are running out of anon posts?
    michaelmoron 934 2007-10-25 23:57:55.0 login to vote score 0
    bluegargoyle: Just so I can get this straight then-

    When you vote down other members posts, it's troll-control. But when others vote stuff down that you agree with, THEN it's a vast conspiracy known as "the Cabaaaaaaaaaaal!" Yes?


    There's a difference between downvoting and zapping. I can't remember the last time one of my downvotes resulted in a zap. They get reversed faster than ratfucker can ask the chatroom for help. That's my whole point behind the nancy score: you could be in on zapping 10 posts and have a 0 nancy metric, or you could be like me and have a 30 metric and not lead to one being zapped.
    Which one is oppression?

    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:58:12.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: Hmmm, i'm not sure. What would it gain? Do you find you are running out of anon posts?

    Yea. I like anonymously posting if I'm not engaged in argumentation.
    grahams 5 2007-10-25 23:58:22.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: Hmmm, i'm not sure. What would it gain? Do you find you are running out of anon posts?

    What would we gain
    ratfucker 470 2007-10-25 23:58:41.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: The downvotes page analyzes the last 1000 comment votes posted and shows any comments which currently have a negative score. Very little of anything is getting oppressed, which makes most of this moot.

    Why don't we have something that puts it into better perspective? I dunno if it would be worth the DB cost, but hey, it's a thought. Put a running total of downvotes versus upvotes in someone's profile. Something tells me the ones who cry oppression are the biggest oppressors themselves.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:58:53.0 login to vote score 4
    michaelmoron: There's a difference between downvoting and zapping. I can't remember the last time one of my downvotes resulted in a zap. They get reversed faster than ratfucker can ask the chatroom for help.

    You have got to kill this persecution complex.
    grahams 5 2007-10-25 23:59:21.0 login to vote score 0
    sunofsam: Yea. I like anonymously posting if I'm not engaged in argumentation.

    How many would be a reasonable number for a day? I picked 8 pretty arbitrarily
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-25 23:59:42.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: What would we gain

    What would you lose? Place chugged right along before this, and now that meta is poison what would it hurt?
    grahams 5 2007-10-25 23:59:58.0 login to vote score 2
    michaelmoron: There's a difference between downvoting and zapping. I can't remember the last time one of my downvotes resulted in a zap. They get reversed faster than ratfucker can ask the chatroom for help. That's my whole point behind the nancy score: you could be in on zapping 10 posts and have a 0 nancy metric, or you could be like me and have a 30 metric and not lead to one being zapped.
    Which one is oppression?


    Virtually nothing gets hidden, so neither are oppression
    michaelmoron 934 2007-10-26 00:00:29.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: Do you find you are running out of anon posts?

    Yes, is mine R*GG*D or something? It never seems to go above 3 available.

    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-26 00:00:35.0 login to vote score 0
    sunofsam: Bullshit. EJ0 is not challenging anyone. You look at him with rosey glasses. His arguments are shit. And you know this. He doesn't address pertinent points. He is vocal about attacking this site. He is a worthless piece of shit arguer worth nothing more than kicking around like a midget with a big mouth.

    He deserves no real respect, and his mind is far more closed that vaylon's.


    Flatly untrue. I've never met someone whose mind is more closed than vaylons. And ejo's mind is far more open than people give credit to. Perhaps perspective skews this judgment, but I have a decent conversation with those who often create controversy here. And they are the ones who often run the gauntlet of critics. I respect that. I don't respect certain folks who are even worse than those guys but run with the mainstream views of this site.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-26 00:00:49.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: How many would be a reasonable number for a day? I picked 8 pretty arbitrarily

    I don't see a reason for limiting it at all-- the system has changed in major ways since the policy was enacted. If there's a problem you can reinstitute a restriction.
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-26 00:03:25.0 login to vote score 0
    ratfucker: This.

    Seriously, Untrustworthy... we've had our moments in the past. If you want to argue and play contrarian, great. But please, read the thread if you haven't bothered to do so and get the partisan bent out of your head and look at it from the other perspective:

    We have someone here who is making threats against the site, shitting whenever he can, lying about his behaviour and you still want to defend him? Sorry man, but there IS such a thing as an indefensible person.

    You've made several remarks since posting in this thread, Untrustworthy, that completely belie what has actually happened tonight and in the past.

    I know you're not as short-sighted as your last few posts make you seem, so let me know when you're able to look at the whole picture and not limit your responses to a few ideological soundbites.


    I'm not about to defend any one person. I will defend anyone's point of view. That can be grahams, vaylon, michaelmoron, ejo, etc. People who wish to trash this site are welcome to it.
    grahams 5 2007-10-26 00:03:30.0 login to vote score 2
    sunofsam: I don't see a reason for limiting it at all-- the system has changed in major ways since the policy was enacted. If there's a problem you can reinstitute a restriction.

    There is an underlying problem with users who wouldn't ever post a non-anonymous post if we gave them the chance. The resident trolls were getting blamed for behavior of completely invisible third parties.

    I'm keen to avoid that, because it stirred up a lot of shit.
    grahams 5 2007-10-26 00:04:18.0 login to vote score 3
    michaelmoron: Yes, is mine R*GG*D or something? It never seems to go above 3 available.

    You get a new one every 3 hours to spread across any alts as long as you've been active on the site in the last 6 hours.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-26 00:04:27.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: I'm keen to avoid that, because it stirred up a lot of shit.

    meta's been contained.
    vaylon kenadell 201 2007-10-26 00:04:33.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: And this is why you fail. You are intellectually incapable of stepping outside of your own opinion.

    That's nonsense. I'm capable of examining something objectively. You, on the other hand, seem to think that the more asinine or flat-out wrong the opinion, and dishonest or dim the commenter, the more value the post has. I've yet to actually see you come out and say that something is wrong when it obviously is wrong. In fact, you will defend to the death something which is obviously wrong, and call people who criticize it as being "close-minded." For example, if someone were to come into this thread and claim that the earth is flat, and I said, "No, that's quite obviously wrong, you idiot," you would attack me as being "close-minded" and "intolerant" of other's opinions, and at that point, I would (rightfully) call you an idiot as well.

    untrustworthy: And beyond that, you feel that it is necessary to lodge personal attacks against those you disagree with.

    Yes, I do make personal attacks -- but unlike you, I don't also hypocritically claim that making ad hominem attacks is wrong.

    untrustworthy: On the other hand, I think you can't stand the thought of being wrong.

    Unlike you, I can admit that I am wrong, and I have admitted to being wrong in the past. I don't think you're even capable of considering that fact, which is why you resort to empty, meaningless, bullshit rhetoric so, so very often in your many cases of defending the indefensible.

    The fact of the matter is, you aren't worth listening to because all you know how to do is spin and talk bullshit. You're ultimately an extremely dishonest person, and I feel sorry for anyone who takes anything you say seriously.
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-26 00:04:47.0 login to vote score 0
    vaylon kenadell: You don't get it, do you? This attitude is exactly why the trolls love this website: because you nor anyone else is willing to call their bullshit as being bullshit. However, you're more than willing to give them an audience and give them all the attention they could ever possibly hope so, and then you wonder why people like me are angry.

    You're a fucktard. You'll always be angry. Don't blame that on other people.
    michaelmoron 934 2007-10-26 00:05:56.0 login to vote score 1
    sunofsam: You have got to kill this persecution complex.

    I admit the site is better than the old days. My first experiences on this site months ago were posting completely appropriate (but right-wing) comments and having them zapped. That stuck with me for awhile.

    Since the Downvote Page has gone up, and other reasons, the oppression has faded away largely. I'll try to push the chip off my shoulder.

    Generally the only thing that bothers me now is I'll come into a politics thread and start bashing the topic of the thread (such as Pelosi or Hillary for example) and the posters will immediately attack *me* personally with off-topic insults, and not discuss the topic or my comments on the topic.

    ratfucker 470 2007-10-26 00:06:07.0 login to vote score 1
    grahams: There is an underlying problem with users who wouldn't ever post a non-anonymous post if we gave them the chance. The resident trolls were getting blamed for behavior of completely invisible third parties.

    I'm keen to avoid that, because it stirred up a lot of shit.


    I wouldn't change it for that reason alone.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-26 00:06:16.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams 5 2007-10-26 00:06:55.0 login to vote score 3
    michaelmoron: There's a difference between downvoting and zapping. I can't remember the last time one of my downvotes resulted in a zap. They get reversed faster than ratfucker can ask the chatroom for help. That's my whole point behind the nancy score: you could be in on zapping 10 posts and have a 0 nancy metric, or you could be like me and have a 30 metric and not lead to one being zapped.
    Which one is oppression?


    Now that's just not true, you've gotten a fair number of posts zapped.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-26 00:07:17.0 login to vote score 0
    ratfucker: I wouldn't change it for that reason alone.

    Why? Any meta bullshit will be pushed off to the side. Anonymous threadshitting can be nipped in the bud by the submitter.
    grahams 5 2007-10-26 00:07:46.0 login to vote score 0
    michaelmoron: I admit the site is better than the old days. My first experiences on this site months ago were posting completely appropriate (but right-wing) comments and having them zapped. That stuck with me for awhile.

    Since the Downvote Page has gone up, and other reasons, the oppression has faded away largely. I'll try to push the chip off my shoulder.

    Generally the only thing that bothers me now is I'll come into a politics thread and start bashing the topic of the thread (such as Pelosi or Hillary for example) and the posters will immediately attack *me* personally with off-topic insults, and not discuss the topic or my comments on the topic.


    I'll admit that I have a lot more respect for you than I used to do, and that your opinions consequently carry more weight than they used to.
    grahams 5 2007-10-26 00:08:43.0 login to vote score 2
    sunofsam: Why? Any meta bullshit will be pushed off to the side. Anonymous threadshitting can be nipped in the bud by the submitter.

    Not really, because the users who like to stir that up seek out the threads where they can post anonymously. Unless we stop any anonymous enabled threads, then they'll still be able to do what they want.
    someone who may or may not be Anonymous 2007-10-26 00:08:49.0 login to vote score 2
    Eight fucking posts is enough otherwise the trolls will go apeshiat again.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-26 00:09:39.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: Not really, because the users who like to stir that up seek out the threads where they can post anonymously. Unless we stop any anonymous enabled threads, then they'll still be able to do what they want.

    Was it really that bad before the limitations? And so what?
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-26 00:09:39.0 login to vote score 0
    vaylon kenadell: That's nonsense. I'm capable of examining something objectively. You, on the other hand, seem to think that the more asinine or flat-out wrong the opinion, and dishonest or dim the commenter, the more value the post has. I've yet to actually see you come out and say that something is wrong when it obviously is wrong. In fact, you will defend to the death something which is obviously wrong, and call people who criticize it as being "close-minded." For example, if someone were to come into this thread and claim that the earth is flat, and I said, "No, that's quite obviously wrong, you idiot," you would attack me as being "close-minded" and "intolerant" of other's opinions, and at that point, I would (rightfully) call you an idiot as well.

    Bullshit. The issues we've discussed have not been as black and white as you'd like to believe. So your comparisons are nonsense.

    Yes, I do make personal attacks -- but unlike you, I don't also hypocritically claim that making ad hominem attacks is wrong.

    Which only means that you actively admit to being a jackass. Guess what? That is not a point in your favor.

    Unlike you, I can admit that I am wrong, and I have admitted to being wrong in the past. I don't think you're even capable of considering that fact, which is why you resort to empty, meaningless, bullshit rhetoric so, so very often in your many cases of defending the indefensible.

    Apparently, that is because you know nothing about me. I've readily admitted to being wrong in the past. So your claim has no weight.

    The fact of the matter is, you aren't worth listening to because all you know how to do is spin and talk bullshit. You're ultimately an extremely dishonest person, and I feel sorry for anyone who takes anything you say seriously.

    I hope that people read the bullshit you spew. It only makes my own claims more respected. Thanks for setting the bar so low.
    vaylon kenadell 201 2007-10-26 00:09:40.0 login to vote score 1
    untrustworthy: You're a fucktard. You'll always be angry. Don't blame that on other people.

    And you are a hypocrite for personal attacks on me throughout this entire thread, while simultaneously decrying the use of personal attacks by others. Either admit that you are a hypocrite, claim that you never stated that making personal attacks was wrong (which would be swiftly debunked), or claim that you've changed your mind and no longer believe that making personal attacks is wrong.
    ratfucker 470 2007-10-26 00:10:00.0 login to vote score 1
    grahams: Now that's just not true, you've gotten a fair number of posts zapped.

    Wonder what that ratio of up/down posts votes would be....
    grahams 5 2007-10-26 00:10:04.0 login to vote score 0
    Anonymous: Eight fucking posts is enough otherwise the trolls will go apeshiat again.

    We could probably make them respawn faster if you are more active on the site. I don't see many problems coming out of that
    vaylon kenadell 201 2007-10-26 00:10:37.0 login to vote score 1
    untrustworthy: Which only means that you actively admit to being a jackass. Guess what? That is not a point in your favor.

    Indeed, I am more than happy to admit that I make prodigious use of personal attacks, but at least I am not a hypocrite. The real question is -- are you willing or even capable of admitting that you are a hypocrite?
    michaelmoron 934 2007-10-26 00:11:18.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: Now that's just not true, you've gotten a fair number of posts zapped.

    Ok, well you're the numbers guy, I guess I have the wrong impression of my actions. As muninsfire says "My bad!"


    sunofsam 241 2007-10-26 00:11:26.0 login to vote score 1
    vaylon kenadell:

    That was too smart for me. Could you dumb down the post a bit?
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-26 00:11:49.0 login to vote score 0
    vaylon kenadell: And you are a hypocrite for personal attacks on me throughout this entire thread, while simultaneously decrying the use of personal attacks by others. Either admit that you are a hypocrite, claim that you never stated that making personal attacks was wrong (which would be swiftly debunked), or claim that you've changed your mind and no longer believe that making personal attacks is wrong.

    You are on jackass who has forced me to make an exception. Are you proud?
    grahams 5 2007-10-26 00:12:23.0 login to vote score 3
    sunofsam: Was it really that bad before the limitations? And so what?

    It enabled a couple of users who made no positive contributions to the site to fuck around and cause more drama than we already have. It's one of those behind the scenes things that I can't really explain without giving too many details, but the anon change had its reasons.
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-26 00:12:48.0 login to vote score 0
    vaylon kenadell: Indeed, I am more than happy to admit that I make prodigious use of personal attacks, but at least I am not a hypocrite. The real question is -- are you willing or even capable of admitting that you are a hypocrite?

    I admit to making personal attacks against you. That means that I am not a hypocrite. Yet you are still an asshole. What excuse do you have?
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-26 00:13:33.0 login to vote score 0
    Anonymous: Eight fucking posts is enough otherwise the trolls will go apeshiat again.

    But the system has changed since then. I don't believe there will be a problem with anonyshitting now.
    grahams 5 2007-10-26 00:13:50.0 login to vote score 1
    michaelmoron: Ok, well you're the numbers guy, I guess I have the wrong impression of my actions. As muninsfire says "My bad!"

    no worries - nothing's ever black and white :)
    bluegargoyle 635 2007-10-26 00:13:56.0 login to vote score 4
    untrustworthy: I've had conversations with these people you have issues with. Nobody should fear or hate them. They are only trying to challenge all of us. And if they didn't do it, I would. It isn't to piss people off. It's to make us challenge our own ideas. If you feel threatened, then you should be threatened. But that is to everyone's benefit.

    We aren't politicians. We aren't policy makers. We're just people. If you're afraid of someone challenging your point of view, then don't come here. If you are confident in your objectivity, then listen.



    I don't recall at any point saying that I was either threatened or afraid. Annoyed, certainly, but why do you automatically assume fear must be at work?

    For example- I can discuss, making multiple references and citations to back me up, exactly why I think the Constitution clearly guarantees separation of church and state- one of my "hot button" issues. Me and Samrydoc will frequently get into it with each other about where Ron Paul stands on that issue, and we will consistently disagree. While I think he is wrong, I do not engage in a hysterical "ZOMG- Sarmydoc is trying to ruin the site, ban himmmm!!!" In fact, in a recent thread I promised him if Ron Paul actually won in 08, I would buy him a beer. And I meant it.

    "Right wing" does NOT automatically mean "troll" and few if any people here really act as if it does. But Crusader does happen to be a troll, in every sense of the word, and the fact that he is a right winger is completely unrelated to it. I'm not sure if you think you are trying to "bring balance to the force" or maintain bN as some kind of wierd middle ground for all opinions or something, but we don't control who decides to come here. This place has developed into a rather left wing slant, but it's not exactly KOS or DU or anything.

    I would honestly and truly like to see a few more right wingers here, so that there would be more people to have a reasonable debate with. Talking about a topic with a bunch of guys who all agree does get dull. But just because somebody disagrees does not mean they automatically bring "perspective." A reasonable and intelligent person who just happens to wrongly think that the establishment clause exists ONLY to prevent Bush from setting up a state church would be welcome, even to me. I'd enjoy explaining why he is wrong. But Crusader can't engage in reasonable debate- he's too busy foaming at the mouth about how Grahams is pouring sugar in the gas tank of his pathetic life.

    Now, to be fair, every once in a great while, Crusader does make a normal post, when his meds kick in, presumably. But it's pretty rare, IMHO. The ratio of intelligent posts to "FUCKING LEFT WING GHETTO CABALISTS CAN'T STOP ME FROM ASS-RAPING THIS SITE, BA HA HA HA HA" is skewed badly.

    It's after midnight on the left coast now, and I'm getting tired. On this one I'm going to just have to disagree with you. I don't think there's much more to be said and it seems like your mind is made up anyway. I hope you will honestly consider what I said here.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-26 00:14:29.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: It enabled a couple of users who made no positive contributions to the site to fuck around and cause more drama than we already have. It's one of those behind the scenes things that I can't really explain without giving too many details, but the anon change had its reasons.

    But drama is now going to be contained better, and some threads are immune to anonyshitting. Why not test it, just to indulge me?
    grahams 5 2007-10-26 00:16:05.0 login to vote score 3
    sunofsam: But drama is now going to be contained better, and some threads are immune to anonyshitting. Why not test it, just to indulge me?

    I'm happy to work with you to make things better for you, but doing away with it would be a major win for a couple of users who take pleasure in fucking things up. You comments a lot non-anonymously so we could probably factor that into the rate that your anons respawn. That way legit users would win and the anon trolls would get nothing.
    vaylon kenadell 201 2007-10-26 00:16:54.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: I admit to making personal attacks against you. That means that I am not a hypocrite.

    No, it doesn't absolve you. You pride yourself as being "open-minded" and fair and who knows what else, and you've also chided others for making personal attacks. And here you are in this thread, justifying your use of personal attacks against me.

    It's plain for me to see how very dishonest you are -- I only wish everyone else knew it. But, they will forget, or look it over, and you will be forgiven -- and the next time you and some other poor slob are knee-deep in another argument, and people are wondering why you're deliberately misconstruing their point or ignoring it altogether, I would like them to know I fucking told them so.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-26 00:17:56.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: I'm happy to work with you to make things better for you, but doing away with it would be a major win for a couple of users who take pleasure in fucking things up. You comments a lot non-anonymously so we could probably factor that into the rate that your anons respawn. That way legit users would win and the anon trolls would get nothing.

    But I only do so because I am forced to by your system.

    How about his compromise: Users can select no anonymous, limited anonymous, or unlimited anonymous when the submit articles? Should be easy to code since you already have unlimited implemented for discussions.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-26 00:18:28.0 login to vote score 1
    vaylon kenadell:

    Dude, you're a shitcock. That's why he's a prick to you.
    grahams 5 2007-10-26 00:20:05.0 login to vote score 4
    sunofsam: But I only do so because I am forced to by your system.

    How about his compromise: Users can select no anonymous, limited anonymous, or unlimited anonymous when the submit articles? Should be easy to code since you already have unlimited implemented for discussions.


    But a single unlimited anonymous political article getting through would be enough for said troll to drive in and shit all over the place.

    Unlimited anon only works for NSFW discussions iirc and they are rarely political
    strayling 20 2007-10-26 00:21:08.0 login to vote score 0
    Can't be arsed reading the whole thread, but bN isn't some invite-only exclusive club.

    Don't like someone? Tell them so, vote them down, whatever. Just don't try and ban them or we'll become what we came here to escape.
    someone who may or may not be Anonymous 2007-10-26 00:22:16.0 login to vote score 3
    michaelmoron: I admit the site is better than the old days. My first experiences on this site months ago were posting completely appropriate (but right-wing) comments and having them zapped. That stuck with me for awhile.

    Since the Downvote Page has gone up, and other reasons, the oppression has faded away largely. I'll try to push the chip off my shoulder.

    Generally the only thing that bothers me now is I'll come into a politics thread and start bashing the topic of the thread (such as Pelosi or Hillary for example) and the posters will immediately attack *me* personally with off-topic insults, and not discuss the topic or my comments on the topic.

    To tell the truth I don't think that will ever change more's the pity.
    sunofsam: Was it really that bad before the limitations? And so what?
    Yes!Thats one the reasons we have people going apeshiat over anon
    posts.



    grahams: We could probably make them respawn faster if you are more active on the site. I don't see many problems coming out of that

    Please don't it's good the way it is.
    Anyways I like to lurk in the political threads I tend to learn more
    by keeping my cakehole shut.
    And Vaylon just give it up untrustworthy would rather see
    the site burn than admit that crusader has it out for this site.
    And untrustworthy I know you'll give me shit for this but try
    to step back take a deep breath and see the forest for the trees about what we are saying about crusader.
    One other note I really don't have a problem with what he posts
    rather he believes it himself or is just trolling.I just have
    a problem with him trying to wreck the site thats all.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-26 00:23:02.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: But a single unlimited anonymous political article getting through would be enough for said troll to drive in and shit all over the place.

    The political discussions are full of shit already?
    vaylon kenadell 201 2007-10-26 00:23:37.0 login to vote score 1
    sunofsam: Dude, you're a shitcock. That's why he's a prick to you.

    Don't be foolish -- the reason he's being a prick is because he's upset that I won't play by his rules anymore and engage in his dishonest sophistry; I am merely going to call him out for the bullshit artist he is. At any rate, your opinion of me matters extraordinarily little in the long run, though I'm sure you imagine yourself as a firebrand, hurling powerful insults here and there, destroying the puffed-up Internet egos of those people who you feel have affronted your miniscule presence in some manner. All I know is, I'm reading the posts of some asshole on the Internet who thinks he's the next Bill Hicks, and the thing that comes to mind is: what should I cook for dinner tonight?
    ratfucker 470 2007-10-26 00:23:39.0 login to vote score 6

    What BlueGargoyle said. (Too big to quote compared to what I have to add)

    The partisanism has nothing to do with it. A troll is a troll is a troll. He's not a troll because he's right wing and I don't fall into that far end of the spectrum as he does. He's a troll because he deliberately tries to sabotage the site and discussion threads. It's not a contribution to the discussion when you shit and run, make threats and whine about a persecution complex out of their own manufactured drama.

    As far right-wing as Crusader and MM make themselves out to be, they're sure running with the very liberal style freedom of expression here. Any true authoritarian site wouldn't allow them nearly as much as they've gotten away with here. (Read: TOS.)

    And here's the irony: Crusader is bitching and moaning that Grahams didn't let something remain buried... when the OPPOSITE problem existed on Fark, stuff would disappear constantly.

    Now where's the oppression, again?
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-26 00:24:36.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-26 00:25:22.0 login to vote score 0
    vaylon kenadell: No, it doesn't absolve you. You pride yourself as being "open-minded" and fair and who knows what else, and you've also chided others for making personal attacks. And here you are in this thread, justifying your use of personal attacks against me.

    That's because you are an asshole. You've admitted as such, right? So how am i wrong, asshole?

    It's plain for me to see how very dishonest you are -- I only wish everyone else knew it. But, they will forget, or look it over, and you will be forgiven -- and the next time you and some other poor slob are knee-deep in another argument, and people are wondering why you're deliberately misconstruing their point or ignoring it altogether, I would like them to know I fucking told them so.

    Well reference this thread. I admit that I am making a personal attack against you because you want to be an asshole. I'm just calling a spade a spade. You are trying to be an asshole and you've achieved that. I give you credit for working hard at that status.

    Just know that your hard work will forever cloud your point of view. Perhaps that is what you want. Perhaps you wish that you can claim that people who call you for what you are simply dismiss your opinion. I don't know why you wish to be such a raging prick, but obviously you thrive on it. So be it. But realize that your claim to dismiss those who call you on your bullshit are not only dismissing your point of view, but also dismissing the way you present it.

    Make no mistake. Your attempt to mask your opinion behind being a raging prick is no excuse for being a dumbass. It's a nice attempt at dismissing your critics. But anyone with real intelligence will see it for the pathetic facade you put forth. If people don't see it for what it is, then they will only reveal their own bias in letting a shithead like you defend a point of view that they might coincidentally share.

    But you go ahead. Keep being a fucktard. I'm sure you'll enjoy your following.
    grahams 5 2007-10-26 00:27:16.0 login to vote score 5
    sunofsam: The political discussions are full of shit already?

    Some are good and worthwhile.

    Still it boils down to this. I like you and your comments, but i'm not going to cave on something that will allow a bunch of drama that we'd escaped.

    It'd play out like this

    1) anon troll shows up and anon posts stuff that looks like it came from an actual known troll
    2) other users attack the anon troll but call out the actual troll
    3) the actual troll shows up in the thread and gets bitchy that he's being falsely accused (which he is)
    4) lots of screaming and poo flinging

    Even if the anon troll gets voted down, nobody has any idea of his username since he's not otherwise active on the site, so it's largely hidden to everyone but me.

    sigh
    vaylon kenadell 201 2007-10-26 00:27:31.0 login to vote score 3
    Anonymous: And Vaylon just give it up untrustworthy would rather see the site burn than admit that crusader has it out for this site.

    As I said, untrustworthy is unwilling or quite possibly incapable of admitting anything -- especially if it involves him being wrong in some fashion. 'Cause, you know, he favors being "open-minded" (i.e., an obstinate jackass). And while I don't know for sure if that's the crusader's goal (I wouldn't put it past him), I do know that the crusader doesn't have the mental acuity to do it alone: which is why I bring up those people who implicitly defend the trolls; whether they want to admit it or not, they will be responsible for the "site burning," as you put it.
    ratfucker 470 2007-10-26 00:29:30.0 login to vote score 2
    grahams: sigh

    I remember how it was before and would like to never see it that way again. Hard to really explain it without repeating everything that's already been said. So yes, Sam, it did get really bad for a while. Especially when you didn't have to be logged in to post anonymously.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-26 00:29:48.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams:

    You really think this will happen at even a fraction of the rate it did now that submitters have the option of limiting anonymous posting? One shit-filled political thread seems like a small price to pay.
    vaylon kenadell 201 2007-10-26 00:30:45.0 login to vote score 2
    untrustworthy: That's because you are an asshole. You've admitted as such, right? So how am i wrong, asshole?

    It's plain for me to see how very dishonest you are -- I only wish everyone else knew it. But, they will forget, or look it over, and you will be forgiven -- and the next time you and some other poor slob are knee-deep in another argument, and people are wondering why you're deliberately misconstruing their point or ignoring it altogether, I would like them to know I fucking told them so.

    Well reference this thread. I admit that I am making a personal attack against you because you want to be an asshole. I'm just calling a spade a spade. You are trying to be an asshole and you've achieved that. I give you credit for working hard at that status.

    Just know that your hard work will forever cloud your point of view. Perhaps that is what you want. Perhaps you wish that you can claim that people who call you for what you are simply dismiss your opinion. I don't know why you wish to be such a raging prick, but obviously you thrive on it. So be it. But realize that your claim to dismiss those who call you on your bullshit are not only dismissing your point of view, but also dismissing the way you present it.

    Make no mistake. Your attempt to mask your opinion behind being a raging prick is no excuse for being a dumbass. It's a nice attempt at dismissing your critics. But anyone with real intelligence will see it for the pathetic facade you put forth. If people don't see it for what it is, then they will only reveal their own bias in letting a shithead like you defend a point of view that they might coincidentally share.

    But you go ahead. Keep being a fucktard. I'm sure you'll enjoy your following.


    I also hope this thread will be referenced, but specifically, this post in particular: when people begin see you for what you really are -- as some in this thread, thanks to your histrionic personal attacks, have already begun to do.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-26 00:32:08.0 login to vote score 0
    vaylon kenadell: I also hope this thread will be referenced, but specifically, this post in particular: when people begin see you for what you really are -- as some in this thread, thanks to your histrionic personal attacks, have already begun to do.

    You are as self-important as ericjohnson0. You really need to get some introspection done.
    grahams 5 2007-10-26 00:32:48.0 login to vote score 5
    sunofsam: You really think this will happen at even a fraction of the rate it did now that submitters have the option of limiting anonymous posting? One shit-filled political thread seems like a small price to pay.

    To be fair, you are the only person that's out and out said that 8 anon posts per day aren't enough. On balance you're in the minority.

    I can work on giving more anon posts to well behaved and frequent posters, but i'd rather avoid anything that causes more trouble for me to deal with.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-26 00:33:20.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: I like you and your comments

    Awe, shucks.
    sunofsam 241 2007-10-26 00:34:38.0 login to vote score 0
    grahams: I can work on giving more anon posts to well behaved and frequent posters, but i'd rather avoid anything that causes more trouble for me to deal with.

    It's hard to quantify threadshitting. I just really would like to remain anonymous outside of serious business.
    someone who may or may not be Anonymous 2007-10-26 00:35:18.0 login to vote score 1

    I hate to say anything again
    But untrustworthy does seem
    to be talking out of both
    sides of his mouth.Bash someone
    for using insults by calling em
    names
    someone who may or may not be Anonymous 2007-10-26 00:38:25.0 login to vote score 0
    Hey Grahams you might wanna sticky the all threads are hidden thread
    for a while till everybody has a chance to see it later today.
    Otherwise were gonna get a lot of wtf is going on here.
    untrustworthy 1 2007-10-26 00:38:38.0 login to vote score 1
    vaylon kenadell: I also hope this thread will be referenced, but specifically, this post in particular: when people begin see you for what you really are -- as some in this thread, thanks to your histrionic personal attacks, have already begun to do.

    Please. Reference this thread. If people don't like how I've responded to your bullshit, then that's exactly what I want. Those are the people who I don't wish to please.

    As for you, I hope you stick around. I enjoy nothing more than someone setting the bar so low that everyone else can enjoy participation knowing that they are not the most arrogant dumbass who has access to a keyboard and the internet. That's got to feel good for those with little confidence. You provide a great service for all.
    grahams 5 2007-10-26 00:39:33.0 login to vote score 0
    Anonymous: Hey Grahams you might wanna sticky the all threads are hidden thread
    for a while till everybody has a chance to see it later today.
    Otherwise were gonna get a lot of wtf is going on here.


    Good call
    strayling 20 2007-10-26 02:13:10.0 login to vote score 3
    Ok, so now I've read the thread and it all started when grahams rescued a post that he thought was one of crusader's which had been unfairly zapped. And somehow this offended crusader.

    a) Too funny.
    b) No good deed goes unpunished.
    meta 1442 2007-10-26 08:41:53.0 login to vote score 0
    michaelmoron: I admit the site is better than the old days.

    I admit that you are better than the old days.

    Not that that's saying much.
    Comment by gregorystuart zapped by community moderation. | appeal.
    Comment by supreme gohidra zapped by community moderation. | appeal.
    Comment by trollingtard zapped by community moderation. | appeal.
    Comment by sarahmanga zapped by community moderation. | appeal.
    Comment by letsgetnuts zapped by community moderation. | appeal.
    doesnotexist 532 2007-11-03 22:28:24.0 login to vote score 1
    what the fuck!
    Comments 401 through 537 of 537 shown. Page 1 2 3 4 5
    If you logged in, you could post here.