Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

All things related to the general running of the forum - got a suggestion? Here's where it should go.
User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by loCAtek »

No, I didn't think you'd agree with me, but thX, just the same.

The Admin, however has to deal with breaking their word.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17062
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Scooter »

loCAtek wrote:ThX 4 agreeing with me.
loCAtek wrote:No, I didn't think you'd agree with me
That's the problem when you make it up as you go along, you can't even manage to agree with yourself from one post to the next.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by loCAtek »

I can't agree with you, if you won't let me: oh well :shrug

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17062
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Scooter »

Check back with me when you can manage to agree with yourself.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by loCAtek »

Say again: agreeing with you, was not the point; what with your goal post changing.

Agreeing with you,is not the same as agreeing with myself.

Google confirms that.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17062
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Scooter »

Perhaps when you stop making it up as you go along you will manage to make some sense.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Gob »

So Lo is now alleging that before Plan B was created, she alerted "the admins" who had not yet been appointed to some stalkers who were following her (where?) and that these alleged proto-admins agreed to stop (how?) these stalkers from following her to a place which did not then exist.

She is so full of fucking shit it beggars belief.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Timster
Posts: 967
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:43 am

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Timster »

Loca~

I call misdirection BULLSHIT! And really stinky at that. David Copperfield you are not; and the transparency is highly insulting.

FWIW, I think that you would do Everyone a favor including Yourself if you just fucked off and just stopped posting here all together.

This is becoming psychotic. Very sad...

Seriously.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer-

Andrew D
Posts: 3150
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm
Location: North California

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Andrew D »

Maybe Jay is laughing his ass off.

He reportedly intended to sabotage this board.

But he didn't need to. He needed only to leave this board to its own devices.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Gob »

Jay? Jay? Where the hell did he threaten that, reportedly?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Timster
Posts: 967
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:43 am

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Timster »

IF someone is being (allegedly) stalked then they need to stop putting themselves in harms way. Or take the appropriate legal steps to protect themselves.

It is NOT incumbent on the Administration of an obscure BBS board to provide protection for everybody that cries wolf in either case.

WTF?
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer-

Andrew D
Posts: 3150
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm
Location: North California

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Andrew D »

If I remember correctly, Quaddriver told us that Jay had reincarnated himself as Mediator in order to sabotage CSB and intended to reincarnate himself further in order to sabotage whatever other board(s) CSB refugees might create. I might not remember that correctly.

Whatever.

This board does not need Jay or Mediator or anyone else to sabotage it. It is doing a fine job all by itself.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Gob »

Utter nonsense, what have you been smoking Andrew? Where/when did Quadiot allegedly tell us this?

Edited to add; it's not “the board" doing this "destruction" it is a couple of minor intellects doing their damnest to cause problems, to gratify and fulfil their own fucked up little personalities
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Timster
Posts: 967
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:43 am

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Timster »

Well, Andrew, thank you for that very helpful insight. And your concern and contribution for the overall health of the board. Thanks...
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer-

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by loCAtek »

Yup, before there was Plan B, there was CSB; where I reported that I was violently assaulted by my EX. Exchanges regarding those assault [dates, times, and contents] were recorded via email. Denials will be dealt with accordingly.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Gob »

And we should give a fuck about this, why?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17062
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Scooter »

loCAtek wrote:Very well, the administration of this board was notified, prior to its inception, that I had a stalker, and a physically violent one. I was assured, that they had 'my back', as it was; and I didn't have to worry about my Ex, following me here from CSB.
loCAtek wrote:I knew Plan B would exist, therefore I asked its Admin to not allow stalking from a specific party.
loCAtek wrote:Yup, before there was Plan B, there was CSB; where I reported that I was violently assaulted by my EX. Exchanges regarding those assault [dates, times, and contents] were recorded via email.

Three completely different versions of the allegation posted over less than a 3.5 hour span.

loCAtek wrote:Denials will be dealt with accordingly.
Oooh, we're all shaking. :lol: :lol: :lol:
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by loCAtek »

Gob wrote:And we should give a fuck about this, why?

It's called justice.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Lord Jim »

So Lo is now alleging that before Plan B was created, she alerted "the admins" who had not yet been appointed to some stalkers who were following her (where?) and that these alleged proto-admins agreed to stop (how?) these stalkers from following her to a place which did not then exist.
Yeah, I'd say that pretty well sums it up....

LoCa, I'd have to say that as a stalker, PMSP really needs to work on her technique if she wants to be effective....

She posted some personal stuff about you and her relationship with your ex while you were on suspension. (In one post) Several people, (including myself and BSG, who should be given some credit for this given the nature of your relationship with her.) expressed unease about this. She then apologized. Since then, she's only posted a couple of times, and certainly hasn't been following you around. (In fact with what you have started up with out of the blue this evening one might easily conclude that you are the one looking to start up some drama about this with her...)

Compare her behavior, (one post with some personal information in it, and no trolling of you.) to your own pattern of behavior vis a vis Strop and Hen....dozens and dozens of trolling posts and provocations over a year and a half's time (including what you've started this evening)...

It's no contest....
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17062
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Scooter »

Someone is obviously itching to get "written up" again.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose

Post Reply