New Testingstan

adr wrote:btw so a few years back i wanted to be just like my heroes

Darth Wong and SirNitram

not kidding ask redneck nosferatu and sandman next time they're here, they'll tell you

hell, i can vouch for this

you had a forum way back when with just a few of our friends and we trolled them with a creationist sockpuppet

good times

omg im finally in the parting shots

and of course, wong caps it off with yet more misleading statements



i don't understand how someone can have his talent with the truth

and not be an extremely rich and powerful man in the real life banking or politics worlds

Zod wrote:

evilsoup wrote:link plz

bunch of idiots fall over themselves to defend unfunny rape jokes

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=155737

yeah that parting shots is pretty...
well
why does he feel the need to be so controlling, does he not realise it makes him look like a dickhead two year old or does he just not care?

well a whole lot of them found it funneh and made them feel like big mangs or whatev

[CuntChocula] death threats


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

quick someone had better ban dalton for using a msysonigisht slur

and if he denies ti, saying it was just an innocent typo, call him a liar

yeah true, shroom
it's sort of interesting, from an armchair-sociologist perspective, all that in-group stuff demonising guys as 'idiots' or 'chewtoys' or whatever
and has AD always been such a wanker?

btw for those of you who didn't get a chance to read the post he took a sentence out of context of before he deleted it

the point of that paragraph was a person can still fit a label even if he insists he doesn't

for example, someone saying "i'm not a monarchist" yet going on and vigorously promoting the monarchy after that


which is what he alleged legault of doing - denying an accurate label - when he got banned: "[..]Frankly, I think you're actually a fundie who's pretending to be an atheist so you can spout the usual anti-science fundie bullshit without having to defend religious dogma. But either way, I've got better things to do than waste time on liars like you."

I'm a bit "shocked" by the argument "I've got no time to waste arguing with you, SO I'm going to ban you.". I mean... I don't know, it sounds pretty childish all things considered.

I wouldn't consider "wasting someone's time" as a bannable offense myself - after all, only yourself are responsible for your own time passed on an internet board.


Or am I misrepresenting Mike's case here ? :

adr wrote:which is what he alleged legault of doing - denying an accurate label - when he got banned: "[..]Frankly, I think you're actually a fundie who's pretending to be an atheist so you can spout the usual anti-science fundie bullshit without having to defend religious dogma. But either way, I've got better things to do than waste time on liars like you."

Emphasis mine.

I just
if he doesn't want to waste time on 'liars', why not just ignore them
if his arguments were as good as he seems to think they are, he should just make his point and let everyone see that the other guy is wrong, rather than throwing a hissy fit

man, legault seemed like an OK guy with interesting opinions, shame he broke the unwritten rule

also: relevant (pony warning)

that's what he says on most bannings recently

that quote was from legault

from bakustra: "I have better things to do with my time than fix hardware and software issues to keep this board running just so I can repeatedly correct your foul misrepresentations of my position."

from me: "It's the most absurd example of a vendetta I've ever seen, and I have better things to do than waste my time fighting your never-ending character attacks."


of ocurse, the bannable offense he gives is very often "dishonesty", or "trolling", which they define in terms of dishonesty, which they never bother proving, and there can be no defense; after they label you dishonest, they just assume any defense is just more lies...

thinking about it

it's kind of ironic that he reply to a presumed character attack by throwing one of his own

evilsoup wrote:I just
if he doesn't want to waste time on 'liars', why not just ignore them
if his arguments were as good as he seems to think they are, he should just make his point and let everyone see that the other guy is wrong, rather than throwing a hissy fit

man, legault seemed like an OK guy with interesting opinions, shame he broke the unwritten rule

also: relevant (pony warning)

I asked in that thread. He's apparently tired of having to defend himself...

So uh yeah, he has control issues and according to the rumour mill has managed to piss off everyone who was friends with him on asvs and is pretty much a massive dick in rl. But at the end of the day, we win because we're not bitter, obsessed individuals. So you know, we can function outside our fiefdoms.

Also, purple monkey dishwasher.

Anyways I propose we move on, close this thread and just have a chat thread.

Fuck it you're right

yeah.


I ask for my peers the authorization to lock this thread and re-locate it to New Testing for archival purpose ; because we have discussed a lot of interesting things in this thread that have nothing to do with TEO and I wouldn't want to lose them to the auto-prune.

Well shit, seems like Phant's been ahead of me

oh shiiiiiiit

I don't ask permission.

In after the lock!

But only to voice my approval of Phant's course of action