Is being irritating now against the rules?

Comments, suggestions and general requests related to the site itself.

Is being irritating now against the rules?

Postby exploited » Sat Jul 18, 2015 5:48 am

uebermann wrote:
exploited wrote:Actually, Indy said that he was sick of a foreign leader dictating American Foreign Policy.

Indy wrote:BTW Bibi needs to STFU. I am so tired of hearing the PM from another country dictate U.S. foreign policy.


You have to remember that Indy has historically confused people, for instance, he can often be found referring to Dick Cheney as President, even though Dick Cheney was never President.

I'm just asking him to not tell lies is all. Bibi isn't dictating American Foreign Policy. Period.


Cut the shit. Stop purposefully agitating people. Last warning on this before you go on permanent post approval. With no chance of getting out for good behavior. All of the mods are getting sick of it dude. You guys get heated, whatever. But this deal where you keep trying to purposefully piss people off with shit like this needs to stop.


I just want to clear up if being irritating to other posters is now against the rules? Because it looks like I'll soon be placed on permanent post approval, not because I insulted anyone, or slandered anyone, or even said something dishonest, but because I argued with Indy about his choice of words. Which is funny, because:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3617&hilit=words%2C+meaning&start=30#p175569

John Galt wrote:
uebermann wrote:It couldn't be more damn clear and yet somehow you are trying to spin this into something it isn't. It doesn't say that they disagreed. It doesn't say that they agreed that Jefferson was wrong. Its validating the point. If they didn't agree with Jefferson's statement, they sure wouldn't have been quoting him and using his phrase in cases that declare a "separation of Church and state" as that would be completely absurd and contradictory.

I'm not sure why you are having such problems reading this but I think its due to you wanting it to be something it isn't, instead of just reading it as it is.


al·most - adverb - not quite

do you have a learning or a reading disability


Or a little more recent...

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=4753&p=227329&hilit=meaning#p227329

John Galt wrote:
Spider wrote:Um. Wut. You should probably re-read. What I said, in plain English, is that calling an unknown gender male by default is sexist. And it is. RE: "if the sex is unknown, then the pronoun used to refer to that person is "he".

Obviously, I said nothing that could conceivably lead you to think that "he" is somehow sexist when applied to people it actually describes. Silly little reach, that. What I'm talking about is the idea that male should be the default for an unknown.

the default for unknown is "he" because that's what it always has been; the alternative is "it" which is worse to describe someone as an "it". for example we talk about "mankind" and that includes all humans. when describing an unknown person people say "he" when referring to "him" knowing full well it could be a man or a woman. however, when the sex is known and talking about an individual it's inappropriate to use the wrong pronoun. it's offensive. but none of it even matters because we're talking about people who want to change their sex, which is folly as that is not possible, and who expect others to follow along with their madness and get their panties in a bunch when someone doesn't. excuse me, you're the one assaulting the english language, not me. you're the one demanding something mean something different, a novel concept that you people keep on bringing up ("obviously you don't know the difference between sex and gender" /smug). well fine, they are separate concepts. so don't co-opt the one that means sex. make up new ones, i don't care. if you want a separate concept then make them separate. what i'm against is not the separate concept. i'm against the insidious attempt to eviscerate the concept of sex and replace it with gender. that cannot stand.


And we wonder why the rules are being broken left and right, and nobody really gives a shit (this is where you guys feign innocence and pin it on a few "trouble posters," then immediately revert to the same shitty behaviour that has driven this board into the ground). The members of PCF's Old Boy Club* are notoriously lacking any sort of self-awareness, which is typically fine, except they have a tendency of going after people they don't like, while ignoring their own behaviour.

Honestly, can we just not have any moderation here? At this point, its very, very clear it can't be done properly, so why bother doing it at all?

*you know who you are
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20270
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2067 times
Been thanked: 1652 times

Re: Is being irritating now against the rules?

Postby Philly » Sat Jul 18, 2015 8:38 am

Saz used to make posts like this and you would throw a hissy fit about how he shouldn't whine and this place is totally chill. You are a hypocrite ex.
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

FREE MR. SHAMAN
User avatar
Philly
Governor
 
Posts: 9289
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:36 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 937 times
Been thanked: 1078 times

Re: Is being irritating now against the rules?

Postby exploited » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:09 am

Philly2 wrote:Saz used to make posts like this and you would throw a hissy fit about how he shouldn't whine and this place is totally chill. You are a hypocrite ex.


What's your point? Everyone is a hypocrite.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20270
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2067 times
Been thanked: 1652 times

Re: Is being irritating now against the rules?

Postby Philly » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:16 am

exploited wrote:
Philly2 wrote:Saz used to make posts like this and you would throw a hissy fit about how he shouldn't whine and this place is totally chill. You are a hypocrite ex.


What's your point? Everyone is a hypocrite.

My point is that you're well aware the people who kiss uber's ass are allowed to break any rules they want without consequence and the people who challenge his decisions can be punished even without breaking rules. You've understood this dynamic for years, and you were fine with it when it worked to your advantage. Now that you've decided to be a gadfly, you suddenly think it's a bad way to run a forum?
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

FREE MR. SHAMAN
User avatar
Philly
Governor
 
Posts: 9289
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:36 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 937 times
Been thanked: 1078 times

Re: Is being irritating now against the rules?

Postby exploited » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:46 am

Philly2 wrote:
exploited wrote:
Philly2 wrote:Saz used to make posts like this and you would throw a hissy fit about how he shouldn't whine and this place is totally chill. You are a hypocrite ex.


What's your point? Everyone is a hypocrite.

My point is that you're well aware the people who kiss uber's ass are allowed to break any rules they want without consequence and the people who challenge his decisions can be punished even without breaking rules. You've understood this dynamic for years, and you were fine with it when it worked to your advantage. Now that you've decided to be a gadfly, you suddenly think it's a bad way to run a forum?


Nah, I've been consistently calling for reforms for quite awhile, Philly.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20270
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2067 times
Been thanked: 1652 times

Re: Is being irritating now against the rules?

Postby Philly » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:48 am

No you haven't. Saz and I used to complain about this stuff and you were always the first one leading the pushback against us. I think we both just kind of moved on when Menson took over but apparently uber is injecting himself back into things and you only have a problem with it this time cause it's you getting in trouble.

While it is kind of bullshit, especially because Indy's entire existence on this forum is making irritating posts, I can't help but kind of enjoy the fact that it's happening to the guy who was the biggest proponent of it when it happened to others. Poetic justice.
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

FREE MR. SHAMAN
User avatar
Philly
Governor
 
Posts: 9289
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:36 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 937 times
Been thanked: 1078 times

Re: Is being irritating now against the rules?

Postby exploited » Sat Jul 18, 2015 10:01 am

Philly2 wrote:No you haven't. Saz and I used to complain about this stuff and you were always the first one leading the pushback against us. I think we both just kind of moved on when Menson took over but apparently uber is injecting himself back into things and you only have a problem with it this time cause it's you getting in trouble.

While it is kind of bullshit, especially because Indy's entire existence on this forum is making irritating posts, I can't help but kind of enjoy the fact that it's happening to the guy who was the biggest proponent of it when it happened to others. Poetic justice.


I'm glad we are both enjoying this situation. You because of perceived hypocrisy, me because I've always found your conspiracies about favouritism laughable. The reason I've been treated differently is because I abide by the punishments, not because the mods like me (they don't). You guys just never knew to take it like men, and just created sock accounts, thus worsening your treatment.

As for reforms, my posting record is easily searched, and quite obviously I have been supporting common sense reforms for quite some time.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20270
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2067 times
Been thanked: 1652 times

Re: Is being irritating now against the rules?

Postby Philly » Sat Jul 18, 2015 10:03 am

You've never gotten punished before, but if uber means what he's saying you're about to be pretty restricted. You might not like it as much if that actually happens.
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

FREE MR. SHAMAN
User avatar
Philly
Governor
 
Posts: 9289
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:36 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 937 times
Been thanked: 1078 times

Re: Is being irritating now against the rules?

Postby exploited » Sat Jul 18, 2015 10:04 am

Philly2 wrote:You've never gotten punished before, but if uber means what he's saying you're about to be pretty restricted. You might not like it as much if that actually happens.


I've been suspended multiple times, and placed in the Dissidents group for extended periods. I'm really not sure what you're talking about.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20270
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2067 times
Been thanked: 1652 times

Re: Is being irritating now against the rules?

Postby Philly » Sat Jul 18, 2015 10:04 am

exploited wrote:
Philly2 wrote:You've never gotten punished before, but if uber means what he's saying you're about to be pretty restricted. You might not like it as much if that actually happens.


I've been suspended multiple times, and placed in the Dissidents group for extended periods. I'm really not sure what you're talking about.

24 hours is not an "extended period".
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

FREE MR. SHAMAN
User avatar
Philly
Governor
 
Posts: 9289
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:36 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 937 times
Been thanked: 1078 times

Next

Return to Feedback and Help

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest