parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 08:45 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Whether or not you violated the letter of the TOS law is something I have no energy to prove, so let's assume you did not. You did, however, violate the spirit of the TOS whether or not you will admit it.

I see. You just like to make accusations without any facts to back it up. OK. Glad we cleared that one up.

My post doesn't appear to violate TOS as written which was why I asked. Since you accused me of "disingenuous nonsense" for asking which part was violated I just figured you would be able to point to the specifics. Now it seems your statement is based on nothing at all. "Disingenuous nonsense" seems to describe YOUR statement since you don't care about whether I violated it all but were more than willing to accuse me of doing so. Perhaps you haven't read TOS lately. I suggest you do so since your statements are making you look foolish.

Quote:
At least have the balls to admit that you have no use for Foxfyre and wanted to trash her.
If you would care to point out where I specifically trashed Foxfyre, that might be helpful as well. My posts here are pretty mild compared to the exchanges I have had directly with Foxfyre, both her and my statements to each other. I hardly think I "trashed" Foxfyre in any of my statements on this thread.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 08:48 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
When someone says, "You deserve to be hated", that seems to have a certain level of "meanness" to it, don't you think Finn?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 08:51 pm
@parados,
Weak
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 08:51 pm
@parados,
Not if it is accurate.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 08:54 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Weak

What wonderful support for your claim I violated TOS. I can only guess that means you think my post doesn't merit a response.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 08:55 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I thought it would violate your version of TOS since you think saying something not directed at a particular member is a violation.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 09:00 pm
@parados,
No, your post merited the response I made.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 09:02 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I suppose when you can't support your earlier statements, "weak" is the only response you feel is merited since anything else would reveal your inability to provide support.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 09:05 pm
@parados,
I suppose you think that "I think Foxfyre hates me..." was not directed at Foxfyre.

Hey Bud, you wanted to post a bitchy thread that invited those who might think like you to join in the ridicule.

For God's sake, admit and say "Eff You if you don't like it," but please stop this pathetic attempt to dodge your original intent.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 09:20 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Weak

What wonderful support for your claim I violated TOS. I can only guess that means you think my post doesn't merit a response.

I think Finn's assertion is that starting a post to ridicule a single member, if that was your intention, was inappropriate whether or not it violated the TOS.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 09:29 pm
@Brandon9000,
So what makes ridicule of Foxy so special?? It happens all of the time here, that is how a lot of s2k members roll.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 10:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

So what makes ridicule of Foxy so special?? It happens all of the time here, that is how a lot of s2k members roll.


Ridiculing one another within a given thread may indeed be par for the course on A2K, but it is not, at all common for threads to be started with the intent of ridiculing one particular member.

My displeasure with such posts would not be diminished if the target was parados, Cyclo, or hawkeye10.

It was such threads that heralded the downfall of Abuzz.

Embrace or excuse them, but understand that they are a harbinger of things to come. No more or less so than spamming a thread with repeated posts.
“No Rules, No Censorship!” may seem like a cool slogan but one need only have experienced Abuzz to understand how complete freedom can be complete chaos.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 10:15 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Ridiculing one another within a given thread may indeed be par for the course on A2K, but it is not, at all common for threads to be started with the intent of ridiculing one particular member.

good point...
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 11:34 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Since you have responded to the thread you "swore" you would ignore, why is it important for us to know that you are, ostensibly, a reluctant poster?

That was more for Foxfyre's benefit. I wanted her to know that I hadn't wanted to honor this thread with a response pro or con because it didn't seem worthy of that.
I don't really approve of its existence either, and my response to threads I don't approve of most often to ignore them, as people have suggested. That seems most logical and that's what I usually do.
But when this liberal stereotyping started again, that got the better of my resolve and I felt the NEED to respond to that point.
I suppose I could have pm'd Foxfyre to let her know my post on this thread was only to speak to that point and not to support it in any other way- except that she and I don't have that sort of 'friendship' or relationship and I didn't want to seem too familiar and make her uncomfortable and as if she'd need to respond in some way she didn't genuinely want to.

Quote:
Meanness or dishonesty can hardly be classified as "liberal," or "conservative" 'traits. They can be characterized as the predominate traits of many of the liberals on A2K, because you are right that these are personality traits, and they happen to be the common personality traits of many A2K liberals who have chosen Foxfyre as their favorite target.

Yes, but why only the North American liberals? I'm sorry, but I find that point very interesting.
Or maybe a more direct question - why does it only seem to be North Americans (aside from the Mexican members) who start this sort of thread about other members? Has there ever been one started by a European, Australian or Asian member? I am sincerely curious.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 04:16 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

So what makes ridicule of Foxy so special?? It happens all of the time here, that is how a lot of s2k members roll.

Absolutely no one has asserted that she is special in any post in this thread. What was asserted was that starting a post the purpose of which is to ridicule one member is inappropriate.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 07:00 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Perhaps you don't understand self deprecating humor Finn. Do you think I really believe Foxfyre hates me? I think she gets frustrated with me and I with her but that doesn't equate to hate.

"I think she hates me" is an overreaction on my part and not directed at her. It is humor based on parados can't handle being rejected so blows up. I find it funny that your response is to take it seriously and say I deserve to be hated. I find your continued rants and attempts to be snarky while claiming anyone that does so violates TOS to be even funnier. But then, that's just me. I have a sense of humor and can laugh at myself as well as others.


It sure doesn't take much of a stick to poke you. I would guess you will use this post to go off on another of your "I know what you are" rants and I can get another laugh out of it.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 07:09 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Weak

What wonderful support for your claim I violated TOS. I can only guess that means you think my post doesn't merit a response.

I think Finn's assertion is that starting a post to ridicule a single member, if that was your intention, was inappropriate whether or not it violated the TOS.

Yes, starting a thread to ridicule a single member could be considered inappropriate. That would be opinion and no reason to question it on my part. Claiming it violates TOS is something else entirely. I don't believe I violated TOS which is why I asked for a clarification on what part of TOS I would have violated.

Rather than being helpful and providing where TOS would apply, Finn avoided the question. That's fine. He is free to be disrespectful of my inquiries but he should be wary of his own petard.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 08:11 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Weak

What wonderful support for your claim I violated TOS. I can only guess that means you think my post doesn't merit a response.

I think Finn's assertion is that starting a post to ridicule a single member, if that was your intention, was inappropriate whether or not it violated the TOS.

Yes, starting a thread to ridicule a single member could be considered inappropriate. That would be opinion and no reason to question it on my part. Claiming it violates TOS is something else entirely. I don't believe I violated TOS which is why I asked for a clarification on what part of TOS I would have violated.

Rather than being helpful and providing where TOS would apply, Finn avoided the question. That's fine. He is free to be disrespectful of my inquiries but he should be wary of his own petard.

Frankly, I'm not trying to persecute you, but whenever one states an opinion, as I did, one is then called upon to repeat it over and over. I am not sure what your intention was, and, on the whole, I think this discussion has just about run its course, and we should move on to matters of greater moment in other threads.
Debra Law
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 10:14 am
@Brandon9000,
After repeatedly bashing Parados throughout this thread, Brandon9000 wrote:

Frankly, I'm not trying to persecute you, but whenever one states an opinion, as I did, one is then called upon to repeat it over and over. I am not sure what your intention was, and, on the whole, I think this discussion has just about run its course, and we should move on to matters of greater moment in other threads.


OH? You're finally done bashing and persecuting Parados and now demand that we move on to more important matters? Perhaps we should spend the next several pages bashing YOU for your hypocritical high-horse attitude. You don't get to be a turd and simultaneously dictate what other people should do or not do. You're not our elected leader and your efforts to appoint yourself to the position are rejected.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 11:15 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
I think this discussion has just about run its course, and we should move on to matters of greater moment in other threads.

This thread probably would have died with one page of posts and 20 views if Finn hadn't turned up the volume.

The "I'm ignoring you too" joke only lasts so long.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Oddities and Humor - Discussion by edgarblythe
Let's play "Caption the Photo" II - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Funny Pictures ***Slow Loading*** - Discussion by JerryR
Caption The Cartoon - Discussion by panzade
Geek and Nerd Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Caption The Cartoon Part Deux - Discussion by panzade
IS IT OK FOR ME TO CHEAT? - Question by Setanta
2008 Election: Political Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/22/2022 at 11:29:32