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

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Gob »

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

It's called justice.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You really are either;
a) Insane.
b) Delusional.
c) Taking the piss.
d) Drunk.
e) All of the above.

Something you posted about, some time back on the CSB, is somehow related to this imaginary "informing the mods here" about a stalker, before the board was created, and due to this we should have stopped this person, about whom we know nothing, from coming here and doing, something, (what?) and we should do this to aid the person who has single-handedly taken over the role of causing the most shit to the boards detriment, (since Quaddy got his come-uppance,) out of some idea of "justice".

Seek help.
“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
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 »

We'll see: Gob claims two years ago he'll protect me from stalking- to condoning net bullying up to and including posting personal info on his site?

PMSP was disciplined how, again?

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 »

And now a fourth completely different version within four hours.
"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: Seek help.

Obviously, not from you, since you're not a professional.

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:PMSP was disciplined how, again?
She was told to knock it off and she did, after a single request. Whereas you...
"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 »

Oh, wow, it gets better, two years ago I promised to protect you from stalking?

How could I do that?

I live in fucking Australia.

What should PMSP [sic] be “disciplined” for?
“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
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 »

LoCa, this is what you had to say about this, just a little over a week ago:
loCAtek wrote:ThX BSG et al :ok
Welcome aboard PMSP, nice to see you 'surfacing'! I've been expecting you.
Doesn't sound like you were all that bent out of shape....

This whole thing you've started this evening sure looks a lot more like you just coming up with yet another line of attack to troll Strop and Hen with, than any sort of actual fear or concern regarding PMSP....
ImageImageImage

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 »

LoCa, if the sum total of the trolling and stalking you've done to Strop and Hen consisted of one post that you were criticized about and then apologized for, you would never have been disciplined...

It would have been long ago forgotten....
ImageImageImage

User avatar
The Hen
Posts: 5941
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:56 am

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by The Hen »

There is no way any person who resides outside America would be in any position to make such a rash and foolish promise to you Lo.

Gob is not rash or foolish, Daisy is not rash or foolish and B is certainly not rash or foolish.

Tyro posts only once in a millenium, I doubt he is rash or foolish.

I am not an Admin, neither am I rash or foolish.





Andrew, this board will only self-destruct if we allow it.

I, for one, fondly remember a 4 week period when it was fun to open the posts on this board. CSB didn't have those parameters and would never be able to survive without reconsidering them.
Bah!

Image

User avatar
The Hen
Posts: 5941
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:56 am

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by The Hen »

loCAtek wrote:
Gob wrote: Seek help.

Obviously, not from you, since you're not a professional.
Ha!

:D
Bah!

Image

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 »

Ha! Verily. but let my [priorly warned about] stalkers, stalk?

That's unprofessional, bordering on criminal.

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

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Gob »

No it isn't, you silly fucking tart.
“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
The Hen
Posts: 5941
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:56 am

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by The Hen »

What crime are you saying has been committed?

That you blab too much to everyone and anyone?

Damn straight you do.
Bah!

Image

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

Re: Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

Post by Gob »

loCAtek wrote:Ha! Verily. but let my [priorly warned about] stalkers, stalk?

That's unprofessional, bordering on criminal.

What professionalism? Does she think this site is run for money? Criminal? I'd love to hear what crime has been committed.
“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
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 »

You're making a complete fool out of yourself LoCa... :roll:

You're just repeating the same thing over and over again no matter what facts are pointed out to you...

Nothing you have posted before tonight indicates that you had the slightest concern about this before now...

That fact makes it abundantly clear that your real motivation for suddenly launching in to this was to do nothing but to start a round of fresh attacks against your obsessive targets...
ImageImageImage

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 »

As stated: stalking. Deny it again, why don't you?

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 »

How was anyone supposed to identify PMSP as your alleged stalker when you never identified her as such when she started posting?

Instead of saying
loCAtek wrote:Hey, Gob, this is the stalker I (allegedly) warned you about
you chose to say
loCAtek wrote:Welcome aboard PMSP
And somehow Gob was supposed to interpret that as "fear" of an (alleged) stalker.

Again, you didn't think far enough ahead when you were inventing this fairy tale, because you are making it up as you go along.
"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 »

loCAtek wrote:As stated: stalking. Deny it again, why don't you?

What stalking? Someone posting openly about who they are on a public forum, does not qualify as "stalking".

Now then, now that that nonsense has been shot down in flames, what unprofessionalism has been displayed?
“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
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 »

You know LoCa, if when Daisy reviews this exchange she decides, (as she mentioned might happen) to hit you with another 30 day suspension along with your third probation warning, I wouldn't expect to see a huge groundswell of outrage over it....
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 »

It should be 90 days this time. Probation should mean something.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose

Post Reply