Derleth,
I’m a lifelong tosser, tracing my lineage back to Belford T. Dampknicker, who sailed over on the Frisky Courtesan, which landed several months after the Mayflower despite having left port the previous spring. Tossers have a history predating the much less graceful wankers, with most of the world’s great thinkers and leaders falling into the former category.[ul]-Julius Caesar, long before tossing his first Caesar salad, crossed the Rubicon while tossing off. Despite the popular account of him complaining about his ill luck during an on-board craps game, contemporary records report him saying, “Does anyone have a tissue?!” upon reaching shore.
-In 1066 noted tosser William of Normandy engaged a distracted Harold near Hastings. Harold, a lifelong wanker, refused to rein his horse with two hands and careened out of control, loosing his mount and impaling himself on his own lance. Disheartened, his army quit the field and left the English thrown in the hands of the nearly-French.
-In 1120, Pope Galasius clarified in a papal bull that wanking was, as everyone suspected, sinful self abuse. Tossing was made a sacrament later that same year, but subsequent Popes repealed this statement as too enthusiastic an endorsement and changed the doctrine to read that it was “just damn good fun.”[/ul]So, I don’t have anything against wankers, per se, but I do recognize them as honestly and truly inferior; and I do so without prejudice of malice.
Moderator’s Notes: Can we please not turn this thread into a snipe about the people at FFF and what they’re saying about the people who remain here? Things haven’t always been amicable amongst the two places and there’s no need to amplify that now. These things have a way of getting out of hand.
If by “string views” you mean “posts in nearly every thread” and by “defend” you mean “reply to only the most obviously wrong and/or loudest posters, then complain that he is getting’ganged up on’ when he does not have the time to respond to all of the posts in the dozens of threads he flings posts into”, and by “majority” you mean “the ones who come up with interesting, yet obviously wrong, argruments against him”, you have a point.
Frankly, I’m glad he’s gone. He whined so goddam much if you even attempted to debate with him. People would poke holes in his little theories and then he’d cry about how no one liked him and how no one took him seriously. If someone disagreed with him it was always for some reason other than the fact that he was wrong.
I understand his point, although I think he’s being a bit melodramatic about it. He’s basically making a statement that the board’s definition of “hate speech” is so vague that he’s liable to cross it without knowing it.
Something like, “I can’t follow that rule, because it isn’t clear. You might as well ban me right now.” Whether or not he actually gets banned, his statement is made.
The part that’s melodramatic about it is that he seems to think that the suspension of his posting priveleges somehow supports his notion of capricious and unjust mods, whereas I think it’s more of a straightforward “you asked for it, you got it” situation.
The first step is admitting you have a problem. The second is a request to the mods? Much easier, and 10 less steps. Don’t hate the speech, hate the game, playa.
I don’t get his gripe. I understand the ontological argument. Anselm. Other medieval scholastics took their shots also. Now this is a better place.
Shouldn’t the post in which he requested suspension have been left up? Perhaps less confusion that way. I know there seems to be a practice of cleaning up of the last exchanges in an Admin action.
I’d heard of that other Board, of course, but had never been there. I’d thought we were “sister Boards,” but didn’t realize we were Olivia de Havilland and Joan Fontaine . . .
I don’t see why not, unless he just wants to come back so he can try to get Really Truly Banned to fit in with his pals or something. But like I said, I’m 99% sure he’s taken a break and been reinstated before a time or two, no problem. And if he’s found other boards more to his liking, that’s fine, although I don’t think he needed to make such a martyr of himself over it.
Fair enough. You can understand my concern given the spin that Lib has put on it. I’ve noticed myself that periodically Lib gets himself all wound up, takes a break and then comes back as his relatively non-irascible self. I guess this is just another one of those times.
Anyway, FWIW, he now knows that his characterization of the incident is mistaken.
Well, I thought he had some pretty interesting things to say. I didn’t always agree with him, but he did spark me to reason out why I disagreed with him.
I don’t have anything negative to say about him since he’s not posting to defend himself. Come back, Lib, I’ll trash ya!
