HELL Receives Another Resident -or- No A/C For You, CHUMP!

[Lord Jim]

Not at all. If I were to ask anything of you it would be to add him to your foe list. I did that with one particularirritant and have not had to suffer his foolishness since. Try it, it's wonderful

Point taken.

Done.

[rubato]

Still waiting for someone to show what I have posted in this thread which is objectionable.

Waiting ... Waiting ...Waiting ...Waiting ...Waiting ...Waiting ...Waiting ...Waiting ...Waiting ...Waiting ...






yrs,
rubato

[dales]

I can only speak for myself, rube.

I found nothing "objectionable" in this thread that you posted.

If I was to pick a bone with you, it would be referring to my nick as "bosco".

I assume this is an honest mistake and will let it pass.

However, if you confinue to refer to me as "bosco" I will have to assume that you are doing it to gain my disfavor.

As far as a feeling a slice of "satisfaction" ......I believe a sense of justice has been achieved in the next life.

If one does not believe in the hereafter, why would one even be concerned about 'hell' and who or what exists there?

[Lord Jim]

Well Dale, if you don't mind rube calling you "simple" and "naturally sadistic" and a person who likes to "indulge in brutal fantasies about torturing people they don't like." (which is precisely what he did) who am I to object?

Personally, I would find those characterizations objectionable, were they hurled at me...

Apparently rube doesn't consider the insults he tosses out to actually be "insults"...

Nay nay, not a bit of it...

On Planet Rube, these aren't "insults"....

They're "observations"....

So if one were to "observe" that people who behave the way rube does are assholes for example, he shouldn't take offense...

Since this isn't an insult, merely an observation....

[Rick]

Not at all. If I were to ask anything of you it would be to add him to your foe list. I did that with one particular irritant and have not had to suffer his foolishness since. Try it, it's wonderful.

Since most of my stuff is rhetorical nonsense it's hard to tell but I'm guessing she's not the only one that has me on that list...

[loCAtek]

LOL well, if you're on that list; she' s not gonna to tell you.

[rubato]

I can only speak for myself, rube.

I found nothing "objectionable" in this thread that you posted.

If I was to pick a bone with you, it would be referring to my nick as "bosco".

I assume this is an honest mistake and will let it pass.

However, if you confinue to refer to me as "bosco" I will have to assume that you are doing it to gain my disfavor.

As far as a feeling a slice of "satisfaction" ......I believe a sense of justice has been achieved in the next life.

If one does not believe in the hereafter, why would one even be concerned about 'hell' and who or what exists there?

Way back when, you said that you'd changed the nick because of some problem accessing the account. I don't recall what that was. And so you re-registered as "dales". You have never said that you didn't want to be called bosco or that you had repudiated the name and I suppose the 'character' it represented. If that was what you wanted you should have said so.

You will recall that I was one of few people who were willing to take "mediator" at face value and accept him as he presented himself as opposed to others who could not let go of their need for an object of hatred.


I don't believe in the hereafter and I have no personal concern about the existence of 'hell' but I find it interesting that those who do claim religious reasons which cannot be supported by their own foundational texts.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

A response to a post by Econoline is not a post to dales. An intelligent person, or a person not given to compulsive lying, would have inferred this by the fact that it occurred right after Econoline's post and the subject matter addressed his post.




Still waiting for someone to show what I have posted in this thread which is objectionable.

Waiting ... Waiting ...Waiting ...Waiting ...Waiting ...Waiting ...Waiting ...Waiting ...Waiting ...Waiting ...


yrs,
rubato

[dales]

sorry, mate

[Lord Jim]

A response to a post by Econoline is not a post to dales. An intelligent person, or a person not given to compulsive lying, would have inferred this by the fact that it occurred right after Econoline's post and the subject matter addressed his post.

A post describing someone who believes in the existence of punishment in the afterlife as "simple" and "naturally sadistic" and a person who likes to "indulge in brutal fantasies about torturing people they don't like." would obviously be seen by an intelligent person, or a person not given to compulsive lying, as intended to describe the poster who had expressed a belief in punishment in the after life.

Here's your whole post again, rube, (the full context makes your intent even more clear):

The tone of Bosco's post was clearly that of satisfaction.

But in any case.

"Hell" as a place of eternal punishment does not exist in scripture. It is merely an invention used to frighten simple people and allow the naturally sadistic to indulge in brutal fantasies about torturing people they don't like.

yrs,
rubato

So, an intelligent person, or a person not given to compulsive lying, (as a matter of fact, even a person who wasn't particularly intelligent, and given to occasional fibbing) can easily see that your so called "response" to Econoline is nothing but an insulting, personal critique of "Bosco" (Dale).

[@meric@nwom@n]

Jesus H. Christ! GIVE IT A FUCKING REST ALREADY! LEAVE THIS SHIT AT THE CSB!

'S

[Joe Guy]

Jesus H. Christ! GIVE IT A FUCKING REST ALREADY! LEAVE THIS SHIT AT THE CSB!

They will probably go to hell for this.

[Andrew D]

This:

Not at all. If I were to ask anything of you it would be to add him to your foe list. I did that with one particularirritant and have not had to suffer his foolishness since. Try it, it's wonderful

Point taken.

Done.

was posted (according to what shows on my screen) on Wednesday, July 7.

But this:

A response to a post by Econoline is not a post to dales. An intelligent person, or a person not given to compulsive lying, would have inferred this by the fact that it occurred right after Econoline's post and the subject matter addressed his post.

A post describing someone who believes in the existence of punishment in the afterlife as "simple" and "naturally sadistic" and a person who likes to "indulge in brutal fantasies about torturing people they don't like." would obviously be seen by an intelligent person, or a person not given to compulsive lying, as intended to describe the poster who had expressed a belief in punishment in the after life.

Here's your whole post again, rube, (the full context makes your intent even more clear):

The tone of Bosco's post was clearly that of satisfaction.

But in any case.

"Hell" as a place of eternal punishment does not exist in scripture. It is merely an invention used to frighten simple people and allow the naturally sadistic to indulge in brutal fantasies about torturing people they don't like.

yrs,
rubato

So, an intelligent person, or a person not given to compulsive lying, (as a matter of fact, even a person who wasn't particularly intelligent, and given to occasional fibbing) can easily see that your so called "response" to Econoline is nothing but an insulting, personal critique of "Bosco" (Dale).

was posted on Friday, July 9. And the first internally quoted posting ("A response ....") also was posted on Friday, July 9.

What is that "foe" feature supposed to do?

[@meric@nwom@n]

The foe feature keeps the "foes" postings from being seen. Of course if you are either totally lacking in self-discipline or completely bent on ruining this board as the other one was ruined you can click to see what you foe said and keep the bickering going.

I am really disappointed in you Jim, I thought you had it in you to be the bigger person. Evidently you will soon be joining my foe list.

I urge everyone to use that ignore feature and give these shit stirers exactly what they deserve.

[Joe Guy]

Does a foe get notified of his or her foe-edness or foe-idity?

I think people probably should be notified. Then the foe-ee would know not to waste time trying to communicate with the foe-er.

[Crackpot]

If you were to ignore your father would that be a foe pa?

[dales]

Does a foe get notified of his or her foe-edness or foe-idity?

I think people probably should be notified. Then the foe-ee would know not to waste time trying to communicate with the foe-er.

Yes, I agree.

In my case, I've only fo'ed myself and I am progressively going blind.

[loCAtek]

If you were to ignore your father would that be a foe pa?

If you ignored your grand father would that be a Grandfather foe paradox?

[Lord Jim]

What is that "foe" feature supposed to do?

To answer your question Andrew, it doesn't work the way I had hoped it would...

I had thought what would happen, is that if you put a person on your "foe" list, you wouldn't even know they had posted, unless someone referred to the person, or quoted them....

But that's not how it works...

When you come to a place where a "foe" has posted, you see this message:

This post was made by [foe's handle] who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

And to make matters even worse, "Display this post" is a live link that shows what the poster said...(You don't even have to stop, think about it, and go back into your settings to unblock the post...you just click the link and there it is)

In other words, the "foe" system is only very marginally better than the "when you see the handle of someone you don't like just use 'the ignore button in your head' and scroll past it" useless suggestion that was made by some at the CSB. (I always found it ironic that some of those who complained about posts they didn't like the most were the ones who were the biggest advocates of this approach...I guess that "ignore button in their head" didn't work real well for them, or they'd have had nothing to complain about... )

So when I saw that rube had two back to back posts in this thread, I confess that my curiosity got the better of me....

And when I saw that he was fairly begging for someone, ("waiting...waiting...waiting...") to explain to him what he done that was objectionable in this thread, I felt...(purely as a humanitarian gesture and as a courtesy to a fellow poster, of course...) that I should explain it to him and hopefully clear up his befuddlement....

To summarize, the "foe" feature on this board is really not all that helpful in terms of making it easy to ignore someone (At least for me). Despite that I will endeavor to ignore his provocations...

But I promise only progress, not perfection....

[Econoline]

What is that "foe" feature supposed to do?

To answer you question Andrew, it doesn't work the way I had hoped it would...

I had thought what would happen, is that if you put a person on your "foe" list, you wouldn't even know they had posted, unless someone referred to the person, or quoted them....

But that's not how it works...

When you come to a place where a "foe" has posted, you see this message:

This post was made by [foe's handle] who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

And to make matters even worse, "Display this post" is a live link that shows what the poster said...(You don't even have to stop, think about it, and go back into your settings to unblock the post...you just click the link and there it is)

In other words, the "foe" system is only very marginally better than the "when you see the handle of someone you don't like just use 'the ignore button in your head' and scroll past it" useless suggestion that was made by some at the CSB. (I always found it ironic that some of those who complained about posts they didn't like the most were the ones who were the biggest advocates of this approach...I guess that "ignore button in their head" didn't work real well for them, or they'd have had nothing to complain about... )

Thanks for that explanation, Jim. I was always a strong supporter of the "ignore button in your head" approach over at the CSB, though I finally changed my mind at the end. (Most of the time the only poster I would have put on an "ignore" list would have been David Ben Ariel, until Steve became...well, whatever kind of psychotic he finally became. He used up such an enormous amount of the bandwidth over there--in an apparently deliberate effort to be "un-ignorable"--that I finally wished for an "ignore" button myself.)

This "foe" feature strikes me as a good compromise in that (a) it doesn't automatically let you see the posts you already know you don't want to read, and (b) before you can read one of those posts it reminds you that you really don't want to read it. (If you don't want to listen to your own advice, that's your problem. )