Has anyone proposed “Diorama queens” as a term for posters who overreact to every post he makes?
Has anyone proposed “Diography” as the term for the story of his life?
I think it’s probably in poor form to complain when he is not evincing the behaviors that push him into “annoying” territory as opposed to merely strong-opinioned and vitriolic.
Dio-fender!
They are Diobetics.
They are adherents of L. Ron Hubbard’s Dionetics.
I find them Dio-bolical.
I have Diognosed them with Dio-sthymic Diosorder and prescribe a course of Diolectical behavioral therapy.
Sorry, I can’t participate in this thread any longer - I’m on a Diot.
Well, I only just thought of it. But these threads do get a bit runny.
Shit, Cat Whisperer’s “Diot” wins. Thanks for playing everyone … except Zeriel.
Dioquitter.
This thread is called ‘Catch-all Dio Pitting’. I have yet to see a disclaimer that says “Members Only.”
I posted a link. There was no* breathless *about it. Steve came to Dio’s defense and double posted and I posted a link to my response. As someone said:
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
Not shockingly, Dio did exactly what Joey P says he does (and presumably will continue to do).
So don’t talk to me. It’s just limited discussion in a Pit thread that’s not about you, so why bother? Are you jealous of Dio’s attention?
Pay noooooo attention to the Snark behind the Computer.
I also feel I must point out that I was not complaining about Dio. I have not made one serious comment in this thread, except for the thing about robots, they’re still cool, and now maybe this one … sort of.
I gave up complaining about Dio when I realized it would be more productive and less painful to physically bash my head into a wall. When I took the time to look at his non-trolly posts I noticed we had similar thoughts on a couple things, like Will & Kate’s wedding, so if we can agree on somethings maybe he’s not 100% evil (perhaps just 97%). So, I decided to be all Zen about Dio and not let him get to me, I’m DioZen. But that doesn’t mean I won’t come into these threads and make silly comments just for the heck of it but they’re more meta and not actually about Dio, himself.
If only more posters could be DioZen, we could lower the average blood pressure of
the boards, dogs and cats would hump each other and like it, unicorns would frolic and poop cotton candy rainbows and everything would come with bacon (double entendre intended).
You are misinformed. That is false. Unicorns and cotton candy rainbows are a myth.
Don’t harsh my mellow.
WWGBD?
Eh, I tend to hold myself to a standard whereby I’m almost knee-jerkingly scrupulous in defense of someone when they do something right if I am also prone to attacking them when they do something wrong. And I get into a tussle with Dio on a fairly regular basis, given that his hot-button issues intersect mine in a few places.
No harm, no foul.
No problem. Have some bacon and cotton candy!
Dio is a darling. He keeps all the cuddly bullshit down. Besides if he upsets all you fuckheads so much, then he must be doing something right.
I seem to have run out of bitters for my Manhattan. Could you do me a favor and spit into the mixer? There’s a good chap.
It’s here because you brought it here.
Which kind of undercuts your ‘it got here somehow’ bullshit. If you think Dio was wrong explain how and link cites. Your goalpost scooting and grasping-at-straws smearing is getting old.
That’s the premise of the entire thread. I linked it. I didn’t try to hash it out here. There was nothing to hash out, much as Steve or Dio want you to believe. He was arrogantly making statements that were false. Again.
So you wanted the debate to move into here? :dubious:
I linked the post where he made a false statement and to show he made an incorrect statement. Finn also backed me up. The type of statement that he made put the burden of proof on him since he threw out some historical unknown. If I told you that George Washington was really a hermaphrodite, that burden of proof is on me.
No one could back up what he said. They tried, but it still didn’t negate the fact that the supposed Bible scholar fd up big time.
It was annoying because he tried to smudge his original words into something like “that’s not what I meant” and “I’m still right”. He finally admitted he was wrong, more or less.
Not surprisingly, when he called me a liar in this thread and then lied about what I ‘said’, I asked him to link it. Cite it. Prove it. He could not.
What do you not understand? Who is grasping at straws here?