Free speech on forums

[sockaraus]

Originally Posted by sullygom

You are all fuckwits, except those of you who aren't........subjective pov

Woohoo!!!

[chris4sylvia]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Those who flame me for standing by my friends are too contemptible for me to care about their judgement of me. Actually, I am proud of their hostility.

I do not believe that deidre79, Bill24, Carrie Joslin, and Maya lied about who they were.

I had some questions about the relationship between Carrie Joslin, Carrie_J, and JuliaE, but Filipina/Maya cleared them up.

Though there is a discrepency between your definition of "flaming" and the overall majority of forum members definition, surely the only definition that should be used is the one held by the sites owners.

But how can you realistically think that Deidre DID NOT lie about who they were, when they posted at least 3 pictures each containing a different girl, and said that each picture was of themselves.

The solution to that problem was given very early on, all either of them had to do was identify who was using the profile when they posted. Basically like Sylvia and myself do.

[JoeDirty]

Evidence of favoritism by the Mods would be something like this....

BANNING a poster that one doesn't like (e.g., Carrie) for (allegedly) doing basically the EXACT SAME THING in a fuckin' PM that another poster who is liked (e.g., EL-P) (actually) did right out in the open but WASN'T BANNED.

But that sort of thing NEVER happens around here, does it? Nah.

[69magpie]

Originally Posted by JoeDirty

Evidence of favoritism by the Mods would be something like this....

BANNING a poster that one doesn't like (e.g., Carrie) for (allegedly) doing basically the EXACT SAME THING in a fuckin' PM that another poster who is liked (e.g., EL-P) (actually) did right out in the open but WASN'T BANNED.

But that sort of thing NEVER happens around here, does it? Nah.

And yet you still slip through the net Joe......you are proof that the Mods don't ban people just because they don't like them.

[sockaraus]

Originally Posted by 69magpie

And yet you still slip through the net Joe......you are proof that the Mods don't ban people just because they don't like them.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[JoeDirty]

Originally Posted by 69magpie

And yet you still slip through the net Joe......you are proof that the Mods don't ban people just because they don't like them.

AFAIK I'm only really UNLIKED by one Mod. I'm sure that she'd ban my ass if I ever did anything halfway approaching what certain other posters do around here.

Think about it. Carrie wasn't liked. So they were looking for an excuse to get rid of her. So when she (allegedly) posted a link to something that violates a rule (e.g., "No beast porn pics") IN A PM and the recipient turned tattle-tail and ran and told on her...they jumped at the chance to get rid of her.

OTOH EL-P---for some odd reason---is liked. So when he posted a link to something that violates a rule (e.g., "No pedo sex stories") IN THE OPEN FORUM...they looked the other way.

[69magpie]

Which Carrie are you talking about...bejesus there was around ten of them.

I can't make a comment on EL-P as I never go into that part of the basement, too many freaks down there..

[69magpie]

Originally Posted by sockaraus

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Who are you for real sockaraus, why two faces for the one person?.

[sockaraus]

Originally Posted by 69magpie

Who are you for real sockaraus, why two faces for the one person?.

Frustration. It's the anger that builds inside as I watch this site sink quicklime into a mire of bitter, twisted angry people.
As I watch members snipe, who take delight in deriding others for their fetishes or indiscretions.
I do it because of knowing that others cannot accept that you can be more than just the person you are.
That part of the problem is that you cannot be a multi- faceted person with sexual proclivities that are extreme
But
Yet in spite of them, you are still a sane and reasonable person
Because there are cunts here who won't accept that.

[michael saint]

Originally Posted by stumbler

That's one of the reasons I came to this forum and stuck like glue at first at least. This was the broadest and most ardent illustration of free speech I had ever seen. Its lost a lot since then of course but at least you can still call someone a fuckwit or non-fucker (my personal favorite) and not get banned.

But my personal prediction is that it won't be too long before this forum is just like the one you mentioned. And just like all the rest I've seen.

Nothing gold can stay I guess.

I think that you have had a seriously detremental effect on this forum lately due to your constant fucking whining about the "Golden Days" You fucking has been.

I wonder how the fuck many spammers that Chunky banned without your fucking bitching.

So I accuse YOU of holding this place back by your constant bleating about free speech and other shite that clearly never existed here except in your own mind.


AND
If you need any evidence of this just look at the people that have left here.

FOR FUCKS SAKE

[NewtonInk]

So this isn't Nirvana???

Bummer.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by michael saint

I think that you have had a seriously detremental effect on this forum lately due to your constant fucking whining about the "Golden Days" You fucking has been.

Really?? Then why are you helping me by dragging this up.

And Chunky and Pigget were most certainly fallible. But I have to admit even after fighting with Chunky for days over a deleted thread it was still a draw. I could bitch all day and did for about three days. But its wasn't anything like I've seen since Chunky and Pigget left.

But I won't back down from saying again that even with those disputes its nothing like the favoritism and discrimination I see on the part of our current mods.

A point I'm still clearly willing to fight for every time one like wants to raise the issue.

Originally Posted by michael saint

I wonder how the fuck many spammers that Chunky banned without your fucking bitching.

We used to be able to see when one of the mods banned a spammer, or an under age kid, or ........... well that was just about. Hardly anyone else ever got banned.

I even started using every Louis L'Amour cliche I knew to describe Chunky shooting spammers down.

Can't say that these days not can you?

Originally Posted by michael saint

So I accuse YOU of holding this place back by your constant bleating about free speech and other shite that clearly never existed here except in your own mind.

The you're just bullshitting yourself. I've shown the examples where Nophest overruled the mods. I've said lots of times that when it came to Chunky I never saw him favor one or discriminate against another. But I've seen racists, neo Nazi's and the like come on and watched Chunky give them just enough rope to hang themselves with.

But there's no fucking doubt this was once a much more free and tolerant forum than it is today without moderators who want to be the players and stars.

Originally Posted by michael saint

AND
If you need any evidence of this just look at the people that have left here.

FOR FUCKS SAKE

People come and go here all the time.

But to call a bullshit on you and prove it; who has left this forum because of me? I'd be really interested in knowing. But if you can't I guess its pretty obvious who's just stirring the shit and saying things they don't even know.

[smcaaphd]

Originally Posted by michael saint

I think that you have had a seriously detremental effect on this forum lately due to your constant fucking whining about the "Golden Days" You fucking has been.

I wonder how the fuck many spammers that Chunky banned without your fucking bitching.

So I accuse YOU of holding this place back by your constant bleating about free speech and other shite that clearly never existed here except in your own mind.


AND
If you need any evidence of this just look at the people that have left here.

FOR FUCKS SAKE

Hmm, stumbler certainly drops points when he asks for threads to be merged (when it suits him), and for people to be banned (when it suits him).

I don't really see him as an advocate for 'keeping the gold standard' at times when it doesn't suit him.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Hmm, stumbler certainly drops points when he asks for threads to be merged (when it suits him), and for people to be banned (when it suits him).

I don't really see him as an advocate for 'keeping the gold standard' at times when it doesn't suit him.

That was a member asking who made a simple mistake and would have asked himself. Not a situation where some mod didn't like someone or didn't like the subject matter and combined all the threads just to be a mod god because they could.

Was if favoritism for Chunky to PM me and ask and later just inform that he'd corrected a spelling error in one of my thread titles. Maybe but I don't think so because he'd do it for anyone.

But that bullshit of combining threads because you mods don't like the OP or the topic is pure discrimination.

And all I need to prove that is point out no mod had ever combined all the AZRIEL threads now have they?

PS One more time. I'll say again this is a lot more personal to you mods and your clique or we would not even be having this discussion now.

[NewtonInk]

Still so lost

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by NewtonInk

Still so lost

Which would make you what? Found?

[NewtonInk]

fuckwit would make me found.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by NewtonInk

fuckwit would make me found.

Is that a good thing? You know being a found fuckwit?

[NewtonInk]

found fuckwits are flaccid finds

[sidmaxx]

Originally Posted by stumbler

That was a member asking who made a simple mistake and would have asked himself. Not a situation where some mod didn't like someone or didn't like the subject matter and combined all the threads just to be a mod god because they could.

Was if favoritism for Chunky to PM me and ask and later just inform that he'd corrected a spelling error in one of my thread titles. Maybe but I don't think so because he'd do it for anyone.

But that bullshit of combining threads because you mods don't like the OP or the topic is pure discrimination.

And all I need to prove that is point out no mod had ever combined all the AZRIEL threads now have they?

PS One more time. I'll say again this is a lot more personal to you mods and your clique or we would not even be having this discussion now.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Hmm, stumbler certainly drops points when he asks for threads to be merged (when it suits him), and for people to be banned (when it suits him).

I don't really see him as an advocate for 'keeping the gold standard' at times when it doesn't suit him.

Smcaaphd how about putting up or admit you're lying again.

I've never advocated for anyone being banned on this forum and if you say I have name the member. Or prove yourself a liar again.

[xnxxbob]

Originally Posted by stumbler

How about this? Have any of you ever been on a forum where the moderators "review" every comment before they appear.

Man what a racket that is. I've waited hours for one of my comments to appear while what I had to say got buried by people's comments that appeared in seconds.

Ive also seen times where my comment never appeared because it disagreed with what the majority was saying and offered proof.

Thats my problem with the Huffington Post.......

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by xnxxbob

Thats my problem with the Huffington Post.......

I know exactly what you mean.

[smcaaphd]

Originally Posted by stumbler

That was a member asking who made a simple mistake and would have asked himself. Not a situation where some mod didn't like someone or didn't like the subject matter and combined all the threads just to be a mod god because they could.

Was if favoritism for Chunky to PM me and ask and later just inform that he'd corrected a spelling error in one of my thread titles. Maybe but I don't think so because he'd do it for anyone.

But that bullshit of combining threads because you mods don't like the OP or the topic is pure discrimination.

And all I need to prove that is point out no mod had ever combined all the AZRIEL threads now have they?

PS One more time. I'll say again this is a lot more personal to you mods and your clique or we would not even be having this discussion now.

Here stumbler, let me remind you that it was YOU asking for the Romney threads to be combined...

Originally Posted by stumbler

Have you ever considered asking the mods to combine these to threads?

I've seen them do that for other members and this is one case when it actually might be less confusing.

Just a suggestion because I really like the thread but never know which one I'm on.

And then my answer to that post...

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Please don't ever start shit about merging threads again. Because the evidence is here for all to see that you only object when it suits you

Originally Posted by stumbler

Smcaaphd how about putting up or admit you're lying again.

I've never advocated for anyone being banned on this forum and if you say I have name the member. Or prove yourself a liar again.

Are you now telling me that you never reported one of Joliet's socks (I think, although it could have been someone else), and asked for them to be banned because, if memory serves, he 'was disrupting the forum by posting many threads or in many threads and disrupting ongoing conversations.

And, I think I actually pulled you up over that report, declaring that 'free speech should be applied to everyone, regardless of whether they act/speak/post the way we want them to or not'.

Unfortunately I haven't kept that particular report, but if you call me a liar publicly, well - just because you say it out loud, doesn't mean it's the truth as you know it to be.

Please don't call me a liar again. And I've yet to see you post proof about this favouritism you so fondly slather about the forum. So, to quote you, "how about putting up or admit you're lying again."

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Here stumbler, let me remind you that it was YOU asking for the Romney threads to be combined...


And then my answer to that post..

No I'll call a bullshit right there. In this instance it was a simple mistake by the OP who didn't mean to start two identical threads. That was an easy simplification.

But in the other instances I've pointed out there were either several threads by different OPS on the same subject or multiple threads by the same OP on different topics. Those become impossible to follow and are completely discriminatory because it doesn't happen if its someone in your clique or your boyfriend.

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Are you now telling me that you never reported one of Joliet's socks (I think, although it could have been someone else), and asked for them to be banned because, if memory serves, he 'was disrupting the forum by posting many threads or in many threads and disrupting ongoing conversations.

YES I AM ABSOLUTELY TELLING YOU I HAVE NEVER REPORTED ANY MEMBER ON THIS FORUM AND ASKED THEM TO BE BANNED.

And you are one careless slanderous low crawling liar smcaaphd.

Now you won't give me permission to post your PMs and Emails but you goddamned sure have my permission to post all of mine.

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

And, I think I actually pulled you up over that report, declaring that 'free speech should be applied to everyone, regardless of whether they act/speak/post the way we want them to or not'.

Put up or shut up smcaaphd. And right now. If you've got such a report than you post it. But I have never been in favor or advocated banning any member on this forum.

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Unfortunately I haven't kept that particular report, but if you call me a liar publicly, well - just because you say it out loud, doesn't mean it's the truth as you know it to be.

I didn't say it out loud. I put it in all caps and I know fucking well I'm telling the truth because I've even tried to save members from being banned like Deidre79 and some of our resident racists.

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Please don't call me a liar again. And I've yet to see you post proof about this favouritism you so fondly slather about the forum. So, to quote you, "how about putting up or admit you're lying again."

Why not because that's what you're definitely doing. And here's how I can prove that. If you, your fellow moderators, your clique or any member on this forum can produce even a single post where I wanted or advocated for someone being banned than do it.

But until you or they do you are a lying phony smcaaphd.

PS Right there in the highlighted part you admit you're lying. You are accusing me while admitting you're not sure yourself.

[michael saint]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Really?? Then why are you helping me by dragging this up.

I could have picked any of a shitload of your Mod bashing posts.

Originally Posted by stumbler

And Chunky and Pigget were most certainly fallible. But I have to admit even after fighting with Chunky for days over a deleted thread it was still a draw. I could bitch all day and did for about three days. But its wasn't anything like I've seen since Chunky and Pigget left.

You could never win or draw an argument against Chunky, don't flatter yourself.

Originally Posted by stumbler

But I won't back down from saying again that even with those disputes its nothing like the favoritism and discrimination I see on the part of our current mods.

Nonsense.

Originally Posted by stumbler

A point I'm still clearly willing to fight for every time one like wants to raise the issue.

That's your problem, you just want a fight, you don't even know what you are fighting for.

Originally Posted by stumbler

We used to be able to see when one of the mods banned a spammer, or an under age kid, or ........... well that was just about. Hardly anyone else ever got banned.

I don't understand, that must be before my time.

Originally Posted by stumbler

I even started using every Louis L'Amour cliche I knew to describe Chunky shooting spammers down.

Can't say that these days not can you?

I can't answer, I have no clue what you are on about.

Originally Posted by stumbler

The you're just bullshitting yourself. I've shown the examples where Nophest overruled the mods. I've said lots of times that when it came to Chunky I never saw him favor one or discriminate against another. But I've seen racists, neo Nazi's and the like come on and watched Chunky give them just enough rope to hang themselves with.

So, you think bouche and white (I forget the rest of his name) have a place here and should have a voice here?

Originally Posted by stumbler

But there's no fucking doubt this was once a much more free and tolerant forum than it is today without moderators who want to be the players and stars.

Things change as the size of a Forum increases, you can't, or more accurately, refuse to see this.

Originally Posted by stumbler

People come and go here all the time.

But to call a bullshit on you and prove it; who has left this forum because of me? I'd be really interested in knowing. But if you can't I guess its pretty obvious who's just stirring the shit and saying things they don't even know.

I didn't say that they left because of you.

Your usual MO, trying to put a spin on a perfectly clear post.

You're as bad as fucking DL.

I say again though, you are a negative force here, you attack the Mods so they are scared to ban people that should be got rid of.

[smcaaphd]

Stumbler...

tumbldor.jpg

You asked for threads to be merged because it suited you! Where they may have been posted by mistake, there were two threads of conversations going - but that doesn't matter, because it suited you to ask for them to be merged.

As to the claim that you did ask for a member to be banned, well, we both know who's lying. I'm not going to belabour the point here. Unfortunately I'm not that petty to keep a track of every one of your posts and/or reports.

Your accusation that the highlighted part of my post proves that I'm lying is pure and utter bullshit. I started typing it out, and then realised that the person you were complaining about may well have been one of them neo-racists, which is why the bracketed section was typed. Apologies if it wasn't one of Joliet's socks you were wanting to get banned.

As stated above, I'm obviously not as petty as you, and don't keep a record of all the twisting and turning that you do. If I did, I'd need a couple of gigs of memory just for that.

I am still curious as to the favouritism and 'cliques' you keep mentioning. Please tell me who is 'my clique', I might want to send them a Christmas card.

There's one other thing, too - this bugbear you have with AZRIEL. He isn't my boyfriend, he's my fiance, and the reason his threads aren't merged is because he doesn't post the same thread topic over and over. Now, there are plenty of politic threads that aren't merged. They are started by people I rarely, if ever, talk to, ergo, they wouldn't be in 'my clique'. But still they aren't merged.

Similarly, I or one of the other mods, could, if we were as godly-like as you like to claim, merge the sports threads, or even the science, or the Middle East and Israel/Palestine threads. But we don't, so your accusations are the empty floundering of an empty vessel intent on making the most sound.

Good day to you, stumbler, don't be blowing a gasket.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by michael saint

I could have picked any of a shitload of your Mod bashing posts.

But you didn't have to did you? Nope this thread was off and buried and you had to drag it up and shoot off your mouth wanting to be some clique hero didn't you?

Well now you've got it started again I hope you're happy hero.

Originally Posted by michael saint

You could never win or draw an argument against Chunky, don't flatter yourself.

I lost the greatest and first internet friend I ever met arguing with Chunky. The Fight went on for days because he not only banned a member, who had said 9/11 BRRRAAAHHHAAAA. He deleted a GD thread where most the forum was screaming for this guy to be banned and the ugly came out in some of them on both sides of the pond. Really regularly nice people screaming the most racist things. And it all disappeared in what I called my first arbitrary and capricious act on the part of a moderator.

Hell I still think I was right. But I got left a little short when it was also revealed every post the guy made contained malware and viruses. And the safest thing to do was delete everything.

Still me and Chunky were done.

Yet he would still Pm me from time to time, point out a spelling error in one of my thread titles and offer to correct it. Later I saved him the trouble pointing out my spell check didn't work on thread titles.

After that he'd just notify me of correcting a spelling error for me and it was coincidence but then Lioness would usually show up with another spelling lesson. There's been hundreds by now I think.

Originally Posted by michael saint

Nonsense.

That's an easy word when you can't refute the point isn't it?

Originally Posted by michael saint

That's your problem, you just want a fight, you don't even know what you are fighting for.

There was no fight on this thread until you showed up and started one.

Now you've drug smcaaphd into it telling out and out lies.

So how's the fight going there hero?

Originally Posted by michael saint

I don't understand, that must be before my time.

And now just like smcaaphd you admit you don't really know that you're talking about, can't prove it, but are still willing to run your mouth about stuff you don't even know.

[QUOTE=michael saint]I can't answer, I have no clue what you are on about.{/quote]

But you sure can run your unknowing useless mouth can't you.

One more time. This thread was dead and it wasn't even about this forum. You're the one who wanted a fight.

Originally Posted by michael saint

So, you think bouche and white (I forget the rest of his name) have a place here and should have a voice here?

ABSOLUTELY and I always have.

Hell another big fight was over a mod removing an Iraqi Sniper who posted his hits and kills on US troops in Iraq.

Now where I called a bullshit was no one removed the vids of Iraqi insurgents literally getting their brains blow out in full color on the forum. But the opposite was not allowed. Nophest didn't bring that thread back from the dead but he did point out the truth should never be censored.

Originally Posted by michael saint

Things change as the size of a Forum increases, you can't, or more accurately, refuse to see this.

I think I'm actually the one who said that didn't I? Members come and go all the time.

But you said it was because of me and I just want you to back that up or admit just like smcaaphd that you're lying.

Originally Posted by michael saint

I didn't say that they left because of you.

Now you're telling more stupid lies than smcaaphd. Because you damn sure did right here.

Originally Posted by michael saint

So I accuse YOU of holding this place back by your constant bleating about free speech and other shite that clearly never existed here except in your own mind.

AND
If you need any evidence of this just look at the people that have left here.

FOR FUCKS SAKE

So just like smcaaphd you can accuse without any evidence at all?

And then admit you can't back that up?

But still insist?

Originally Posted by michael saint

Your usual MO, trying to put a spin on a perfectly clear post.

Nope. I'll point out again you're the one who came here looking for a fight.

Originally Posted by michael saint

You're as bad as fucking DL.

No dragging some dead thread like this up to try and keep a fight going is something you and DL would do not me.

Originally Posted by michael saint

I say again though, you are a negative force here, you attack the Mods so they are scared to ban people that should be got rid of.

So you're the one who wants to get more people banned and not me and you admit that.

Man did you just really fuck up smcaaphd didn't you?

Way to go hero.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Stumbler...

Attachment 1935325

You asked for threads to be merged because it suited you! Where they may have been posted by mistake, there were two threads of conversations going - but that doesn't matter, because it suited you to ask for them to be merged.

Nope I suggested the OP contact a mod because it was an obvious mistake. And it got merged because it made sense. Not because you or one of your fellow mods didn't like the OP or the subject.

Now once again what are we even doing here at this point?

Who is it more personal to?

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

As to the claim that you did ask for a member to be banned, well, we both know who's lying.

Yes we do and its you. Because as you complain even though with my fight with Chunky I learned we have no rights on this forum (literally earth shattering news to me at the time I honestly thought we did) but I've protested not advocated almost any banning I've ever seen.

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

I'm not going to belabour the point here. Unfortunately I'm not that petty to keep a track of every one of your posts and/or reports.

You're lying and bluffing and its obvious.

But don't give me that petty bullshit smcaaphd.

You know my opinion of you. You'e clearly stated you're opinion of me. So what are we really arguing about at this point unless its way more personal to you than it is to me?

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Your accusation that the highlighted part of my post proves that I'm lying is pure and utter bullshit. I started typing it out, and then realised that the person you were complaining about may well have been one of them neo-racists, which is why the bracketed section was typed. Apologies if it wasn't one of Joliet's socks you were wanting to get banned.

Nope I call a bullshit on that. I've opposed every banning and never supported one that wasn't an obvious spammer.

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

As stated above, I'm obviously not as petty as you, and don't keep a record of all the twisting and turning that you do. If I did, I'd need a couple of gigs of memory just for that.

You and your clique are obviously more petty than me. This thread was dead and buried and not even about this forum of you mods.

But here we are.

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

I am still curious as to the favouritism and 'cliques' you keep mentioning. Please tell me who is 'my clique', I might want to send them a Christmas card.

Now wait you claim I've reported someone and wanted them banned and can't prove that but I'm supposed to provide proof of your clique (which I think is obvious by this thread)? Who do you think you are? Mitt Romney?

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

There's one other thing, too - this bugbear you have with AZRIEL. He isn't my boyfriend, he's my fiance, and the reason his threads aren't merged is because he doesn't post the same thread topic over and over. Now, there are plenty of politic threads that aren't merged. They are started by people I rarely, if ever, talk to, ergo, they wouldn't be in 'my clique'. But still they aren't merged.

No I say AZREIL gets special treatment. And no matter how offensive or how many AZRIEL threads dominate the board none of you mods, you especially would ever combine those threads or ban him because you love him. Thus the obvious favoritism.

You know some people get banned for "spamming the threads" but others don't for hacking member's accounts.

Seems like a pretty obvious double standard to me me.

But the fact you have to drag your "fiance" into this and defend him is more proof that its more personal to you than it is to me.

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Similarly, I or one of the other mods, could, if we were as godly-like as you like to claim, merge the sports threads, or even the science, or the Middle East and Israel/Palestine threads. But we don't, so your accusations are the empty floundering of an empty vessel intent on making the most sound.

No you wouldn't do that. Its only the offensive members, the racists, the ones you and your clique don't like and then you get to play god. But when it comes to fair and equal; well not so much.

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Good day to you, stumbler, don't be blowing a gasket.

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

I'm not the one who dug up this thread and had to make it personal.That was you're attack dog and you.

[richief]

So post some evidence of Smc's lies, you know what happened last time someone accused the mods of lying and favouritism. Also let's see who this clique is that you keep droning on about.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by richief

So post some evidence of Smc's lies, you know what happened last time someone accused the mods of lying and favouritism. Also let's see who this clique is that you keep droning on about.

I all already have in my 20,000+ posts. If I've ever done anything it is to oppose or at least question the banning of any member.

I'm not saying in invented that thread like you guys falsely accuse Al Gore of claiming to invent the internet. But there's lots of evidence of me opposing bannings and not one post where I've ever advocated for one.

So smcaaphd is not only lying she knows that.

PS I've also been challenged to name this mod clique I'm talking about and you and the other digger get the first two names on the list.

I did not start this. But I'm sure willing to finish it.

[Wraith666]

I'm sorry to anyone I may insult. I don't normally come to the GD threads because of the in-fighting. I'm completely aware of the normal raised intellect of all of you. But I come for intelligent discourse, and all I find is adolescent bickering.
So...due to a compulsion, I'm posting this commentary.
People- let your intellect flow...don't concern yourselves with socks. Share concepts, intelligently argue your viewpoint...use the tools you already have in our arsenal..
Don't reduce yourselves to the levels I see, you're too good for that.
I know I'll either be passed over or chastised. Not an issue.
I am me...and so are you.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Wraith666

I'm sorry to anyone I may insult. I don't normally come to the GD threads because of the in-fighting. I'm completely aware of the normal raised intellect of all of you. But I come for intelligent discourse, and all I find is adolescent bickering.
So...due to a compulsion, I'm posting this commentary.
People- let your intellect flow...don't concern yourselves with socks. Share concepts, intelligently argue your viewpoint...use the tools you already have in our arsenal..
Don't reduce yourselves to the levels I see, you're too good for that.
I know I'll either be passed over or chastised. Not an issue.
I am me...and so are you.

The only thing I don't think you explained is why this day is different.

[Wraith666]

Originally Posted by stumbler

The only thing I don't think you explained is why this day is different.

I apparently thought it was obvious. Thank you Stumbler.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Wraith666

I apparently thought it was obvious. Thank you Stumbler.

Collect it then.

[richief]

Originally Posted by stumbler

I all already have in my 20,000+ posts. If I've ever done anything it is to oppose or at least question the banning of any member.

I'm not saying in invented that thread like you guys falsely accuse Al Gore of claiming to invent the internet. But there's lots of evidence of me opposing bannings and not one post where I've ever advocated for one.

So smcaaphd is not only lying she knows that.

PS I've also been challenged to name this mod clique I'm talking about and you and the other digger get the first two names on the list.

I did not start this. But I'm sure willing to finish it.

So it is a case of you just shouting loudly that they are liars, not exactly proof is it, and a pretty childish way to act.

So I am a member of this clique and I guess from your rather sly innuendo that Magpie69 is a member also, well how about me shouting loudly that you are lying about me being involved in any clique and I see no evidence of any clique. So Mr Liar I would ask you to retract that statement, or provide proof.

PS
Sancho Panza has it on good authority that there are some windmills just over the next hill.



Addendum.

I nearly forgot.


Twat.

[Wraith666]

PS
Sancho Panza has it on good authority that there are some windmills just over the next hill.



Addendum.

I nearly forgot.


Twat.[/QUOTE]

Haha, well it was worth a shot...enjoy !

[ejls]

Originally Posted by JoeDirty

AFAIK I'm only really UNLIKED by one Mod. I'm sure that she'd ban my ass if I ever did anything halfway approaching what certain other posters do around here.

Think about it. Carrie wasn't liked. So they were looking for an excuse to get rid of her. So when she (allegedly) posted a link to something that violates a rule (e.g., "No beast porn pics") IN A PM and the recipient turned tattle-tail and ran and told on her...they jumped at the chance to get rid of her.

OTOH EL-P---for some odd reason---is liked. So when he posted a link to something that violates a rule (e.g., "No pedo sex stories") IN THE OPEN FORUM...they looked the other way.

For once and for all - Carrie was banned for sending an underaged pic via pm. Multiple people were recipients of that pic. She should not have trusted anyone, because no one really knows who anyone is here.

Joe, people post links to stories in the news all the time. Some of those stories may contain pics that have underaged subjects. It's accepted. The link you question does not violate the rules of the Sex Stories Site. That story was accepted there. If ELP wants to advertise the work he's posted here, he is allowed. You don't have to click on it. Just like we don't have to click on the pics you post.

[johnjeni33]

• Be careful who you trust online and remember that online friends are really strangers. People online, no matter how long you have been talking to them or how friendly they are, may not be who they say they are.
• Stay in charge in chat. Keep your personal information secret when chatting online (name, address, telephone number, mobile number, private email address, picture), even if people ask for this.
• Check your profile and make sure it doesn’t include any personal information (name, address, telephone number, mobile number, private email address, picture).
• Meeting someone you have only been in touch with online can be dangerous. If you feel that you ‘have to’ meet, then for your own safety you must tell your parent or carer and take them with you – at least on the first visit – and meet in a public place in daytime.
• Tell your parent or carer if someone or something makes you feel uncomfortable or worried.

[Bend Over Backwards]

As a 'newbie' here, I would like to say that the main reason I wanted to join in was because of the lack of constraints placed on members. As a gobby and opinionated bastard myself it appealed to me enormously to be able to say exactly what I wanted without fear of being 'punished' for it.

However, I DO find it offensive when people become revoltingly personal about one another. To my mind, that stops being opinionated and moves into the realm of cyber-bullying. As an intended victim of a cyber-bully myself I know how unpleasant it can be (thankfully I was saved by the mods on that site and the 'bully' was kicked off).

If I had to level a criticism at the XnXX mods I would say that they are frequently far too lenient in what they allow to be posted here. I'm old enough to not be shocked by much, but I am dismayed at some of the stuff I've read on a lot of the threads.

With freedoms come responsibilities: we are ALL responsible for what we allow to be said and pubblished. We have a collective duty to set boundaries and to ensure that they are not breached to the extent that thyey become meaningless. That way lies anarchy...

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by richief

So it is a case of you just shouting loudly that they are liars, not exactly proof is it, and a pretty childish way to act.

So I am a member of this clique and I guess from your rather sly innuendo that Magpie69 is a member also, well how about me shouting loudly that you are lying about me being involved in any clique and I see no evidence of any clique. So Mr Liar I would ask you to retract that statement, or provide proof.

PS
Sancho Panza has it on good authority that there are some windmills just over the next hill.



Addendum.

I nearly forgot.


Twat.

Yes I'd say when you constantly come to the moderators defense and attack anyone who disagrees with them you are definitely part of the mod clique.

Especially when you start saying I have to prove something I didn't do. How does one prove he didn't do something? How do I prove I've never reported a member and asked them to be banned.

Nope, all I can do is point out that I'm the one who often challenges the mods for banning someone or even starting threads to ask why indiviual members were banned. I've always been opposed to banning any member.

And if fact when other members start calling for some racist to be banned I'm the one who blames the members who feed the racists and trolls by responding to them which if they didn't respond then there would be nothing the racist can do and no one needs to get banned.

Finally I'm going to point out that this thread was not a moderator fight and was actually buried for days before michael saint chose to drag it back up just to attack me. Immediately followed by false accusations from smcaaphd. So I am damn not the one who started this fight.

And I'm not the one keeping it going. I'm simply responding to attacks from the pro mod clique members like you.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Bend Over Backwards

As a 'newbie' here, I would like to say that the main reason I wanted to join in was because of the lack of constraints placed on members. As a gobby and opinionated bastard myself it appealed to me enormously to be able to say exactly what I wanted without fear of being 'punished' for it.

However, I DO find it offensive when people become revoltingly personal about one another. To my mind, that stops being opinionated and moves into the realm of cyber-bullying. As an intended victim of a cyber-bully myself I know how unpleasant it can be (thankfully I was saved by the mods on that site and the 'bully' was kicked off).

If I had to level a criticism at the XnXX mods I would say that they are frequently far too lenient in what they allow to be posted here. I'm old enough to not be shocked by much, but I am dismayed at some of the stuff I've read on a lot of the threads.

With freedoms come responsibilities: we are ALL responsible for what we allow to be said and pubblished. We have a collective duty to set boundaries and to ensure that they are not breached to the extent that thyey become meaningless. That way lies anarchy...

You are directly contradicting yourself right there. First by claiming you like the lack of constraints and then turning right around and claiming the mods should constrain what other members (not you of course) say or the way you say it.

But what I find most hypocritical of you is claiming you like the lack of constraints on this forum and then bragging about getting someone you think of as a bully banned.

That just really disgusts me.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by stumbler

You are directly contradicting yourself right there. First by claiming you like the lack of constraints and then turning right around and claiming the mods should constrain what other members (not you of course) say or the way you say it.

But what I find most hypocritical of you is claiming you like the lack of constraints on this forum and then bragging about getting someone you think of as a bully banned.

That just really disgusts me.

It is one thing to express a controversial opinion. It is something else to direct a personal insult. I believe the first should be permitted; the second should not be.

If flaming and obscene language were banned here most of the posters I dislike would be silenced. You stumbler would still have worthy comments to post, but the mods would need to wash your mouth out with soap.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

It is one thing to express a controversial opinion. It is something else to direct a personal insult. I believe the first should be permitted; the second should not be.

If flaming and obscene language were banned here most of the posters I dislike would be silenced. You stumbler would still have worthy comments to post, but the mods would need to wash your mouth out with soap.

It looks like to me it would be a lot easier and better for you to find another forum that suits you instead of trying to restrict this forum even further just for you.

[origen01]

For the record....

The First Amendment doesn't protect grotesque and gratuitously offensive speech.

So who's standard are we going by?

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by origen01

For the record....

The First Amendment doesn't protect grotesque and gratuitously offensive speech.

So who's standard are we going by?

In my opinion the only things the First Amendment should protect is the freedom, within limits, to practice one's religion, and open political debate with an emphasis on political dissent.

I emphasize "within limits" because I would not want the government to allow human sacrifice, or cruelty to animals if that is what a religion required. I would reluctantly allow animal sacrifice, but not if the animals are burned alive, or something like that.

By "open political debate" I do not mean unlimited financial contributions. I think the American people need exposure to more opinions, not more exposure to the Republican opinion that the rich deserve more money and power.

[origen01]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

In my opinion the only things the First Amendment should protect is the freedom, within limits, to practice one's religion, and open political debate with an emphasis on political dissent.

I emphasize "within limits" because I would not want the government to allow human sacrifice, or cruelty to animals if that is what a religion required. I would reluctantly allow animal sacrifice, but not if the animals are burned alive, or something like that.

By "open political debate" I do not mean unlimited financial contributions. I think the American people need exposure to more opinions, not more exposure to the Republican opinion that the rich deserve more money and power.

Unfortunately, the Free Exercise Clause generally trumps animal cruelty statutes...

...I think. I don't know anymore.

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/a...imallaw121.htm

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by origen01

Unfortunately, the Free Exercise Clause generally trumps animal cruelty statutes...

I am unaware of any religion, even Santeria and Voodoo that practices animal cruelty in the United States. If one did I am confident it would not be permitted to do that.

[Distant Lover]

Speaking of Santeria, these pictures of a Santeria goddess fascinate me. This is Yemaja, or La Diorsa del Mar.

[origen01]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Speaking of Santeria, these pictures of a Santeria goddess fascinate me. This is Yemaja, or La Diorsa del Mar.

I'm glad I image block on. Don't be tempted. That goddess is pretty powerful and is pretty common among West Africans and slave descendants.

I believe in one God but there is power in the gods of the Ibo and Vodun....it's just that their power is pure evil.... It works in the short term but will fuck you up in the long run...