Which one of us is the “dum” one again?
Yeah, I didn’t want to go there. Heat of the moment.
I don’t see why my getting sick of being called a troll is undercutting your point. Putting on a shit eating grin has never been my strong suit. I’ll leave you nicey nices to it.
Actually, it’s pretty much the opposite. A troll has no emotional investment in what he’s posting, he’s just doing it to piss off other people. Someone in the midst of a flame out has too much emotional investment in what he’s posting, to the point where he can’t recognize that it’s damaging his credibility/posting status.
Not meant as a comment on anything you’ve posted here, just making a clarification.
Shit, based on the above, you should close the fucking pit.
Wasn’t referring to the troll post. I agreed with that one. I was referring to your change of homepage to the google search of your name.
Looking at the post where you confused my gender, I can see your point. The information certainly isn’t being shouted from the rooftops buried in your profile as it was.
On the other hand, you’ve been warned about such behaviors in the past. I can see where the mods have a concern. Mayhap it would be kosher to post such naughty info if it were in response to a specific question, such as the recent Wally thread, as opposed to chucking it into a thread as a smear.
As can I but all I got was five letters and two spaces.
lollerdisco!
I don’t think they do. After all, they let Reeder keep the :: shudder :: link to his homepage. It had naked pics of him, and pics of him screwing his wife.
Thinking about that again probably means I won’t be able to have an erection for a month.
NOW POST MY SUBMISSION YOU FAT FUCKING HAGS!!
Oh, wait, I don’t have to do that to start a thread around here . . .
No offense intended, but that says do not post. A post is what is put in one of the forums. What someone has in their profile isn’t a post.
I’m not arguing with your descision but if that rule means don’t put that stuff in your profile, that isn’t what it says.
It didn’t start as a civil discussion, and I doubt it will end that way, but good luck. You are not the martyr I was referring to.
Your tantrum has nothing to do with trolling. If you were a real Jr. Mod in training, you’d have just flunked out. I think you’re emotionally vested in something trivial, obviously spend your time thinking a lot about this board, and if your hobby is any indication, are a bit stunted (intellectually, emotionally, socially… take your pick). Now what is that a recipe for?
Brownies?
Actualy he would have only gotten a C. Declaring, “Here’s a fun flameout” is not so different from :: pulling up a lawnchair ::. You didn’t contribute anything in your first post; you just exressed the desire to point and laugh.
Onr other, minor note: When I am ruler of the world, there will be no more smileys.
Before I vote, I’d like some platform clarification; Would posting one’s intent to use garden furniture be decriminalized as well?
I’m sorry, specific policy questions must be referred to Karl Rove. In writing.
Even as a paraphrase, this is fairly far off. I think I specifically stated that it wasn’t such a “fun” flameout at all. I would go with “you are acting like a six your old, and this will end in tears.”
If such a post is against any rules, I’ll desist and apologize.
Well this is strictly for your information, in case you’re wondering where the criticism is coming from. You didn’t mention anything about acting like a six-year-old in your post. You only commented on the entertainment value of the post. Entertaining or boring, trainwreckspotting is still trainwreckspotting.
::jr. mod purple chuck taylors off::
Let me admit first that CarnalK’s site is interesting. One could even argue that it serves a purpose, as the snarkboard does, by catering to the universal instinct for gossip.
But now to the main business of the current thread. Why on earth should the Straight Dope board tolerate a link to a site whose raison d’être is to pick at the bones of past board embarrassments and trainwrecks? It’s odd to me that anybody should seriously expect it to.
Does one expect to see a link to all the dirt on past Popes on the Vatican website? Should I be complaining that the official White House site offers no links to pages detailing Republican scandals?
It’s a no brainer. Of course it was right to remove the link.
So Waverly, “I’m throwing a tantrum”, “not a very good jr. mod”, I bore you, and harborwolf is “playing martyr”. Got any other lame Pit clichés that show you don’t have a clue? No original ways to cheerlead the mods?
I know I made this Pit thread antagonistic, but I was called a shit-flinger by an Admin. Sort of set me off. Anyone who got a chance to see my site would know it’s not done in a vindictive way and even the ptofiles of Dopers is done in more of a “roast” manner than real attacking. I can’t help but think the admins here take it very personally that anyone remembers any trouble here.
I guess there’s not much point posting in this thread until a mod or admin comes in to comment on bup, johnbckwld, sunfish, saoirse and xploder’s posts. You should save your lame taunts for then, Waverly.
As a Democrat and ex-Catholic, I would say no, I would not.
If the Vatican and White House had message boards where they removed any links to dissenting sites, I’d be pissed about it.