this thread is 2 pages long as far as most people are concerned, the first and last pages.
the middle is like those innards stuffed inside a chicken that everyone except for nigs, throw away.
those innards are fucking awful.
the argument was gay from it's inception.
there was nowhere for it to go but down.
are you kidding?
you banned a guy for less than what you have done yourself......
he slapped a chick, and apparently you are hot for her and got all Dudley DoRight......
There was PLENTY of fodder for a fight....
you know,
more than "You're a cunt".
i want the record to show it was Thing who used the "cunt" and "peasant" lines incessantly. Not me.
I would like you to provide one quote where I did anything of the sort.
Ken'sPen Wrote:There was PLENTY of fodder for a fight....
you know,
more than "You're a cunt".
I think I just said that.
plenty of fodder,
and all he said was "you're a cunt"
your comprehension skillz suck.
You were in a defensive posture in this fight,
you had to argue the case that you aren't a testi-less yes man who will do anything to curry favor with dot.
but he never pressed the case.....
This fight woulda been the coolest about 6 years ago.
that's not even good fodder.
that board is not this board.
this isn't even an argument, it's a debate on board rules.
on that board, there is a rule that excludes members children from ridicule, especially 2 year olds. here, there is not.
here, you have the baker rule.
there, we do not.
how is the making fun of members baby pictures any more or less egregious than posting a regualr members picture or photoshopping it?
Hoon Wrote:that's not even good fodder.
that board is not this board.
on that board, there is a rule that excludes members children from ridicule, especially 2 year olds. here, there is not.
see there you go,
inventing shit..... I assume this "Especially 2 year olds" clause is something in the by laws?
Face facts the insult was tame,
but she has her hands on your nads and she squeezed,
you over reacted.....
The argument was on THIS board, because you banned him.
though I know you like to have fights when someone isn't around, or able, to fight back.
especially two year olds doesn't need to be in the bylaws. no bylaws can be picture perfect. shit, our country's court system requires disgression from officials.
and he wasn't instantly banned. he was repeatedly warned and in no certain terms explained how he really didn't give a shit about being banned. so, his wish was granted.
as for fighting when the opponent isn't around...
i came here when asked, didn't i? and i find it mildly amusing you're too frightened to address the baker rule point i made.
note:
i again would like to point out this isn't the type of disagreement where zingers win the debate. it's simply a difference in opinion. hence, the "awful innards" of this thread.
let me overcome my terror,
and ask,
what is the baker rule?
Hoon Wrote:that's not even good fodder.
that board is not this board.
this isn't even an argument, it's a debate on board rules.
on that board, there is a rule that excludes members children from ridicule, especially 2 year olds. here, there is not.
here, you have the baker rule.
there, we do not.
how is the making fun of members baby pictures any more or less egregious than posting a regualr members picture or photoshopping it?
I will tell you what the difference is between the baker rule and what happened over there.
the reason the baker rule was put into place was for people who want their anonimity and dont make their shit public. So if it wasnt a public image, like say posted here or on their myspace, etc etc. Then it is off limits, like if it was a pic that was sent in confidence over aim, etc. The person has the right to request it be removed. At the same time, no one can stop anyone from mocking it, so the rule is not to protect someone from being verbally mocked.
From what I understand, the freak kid in question, his moms posted the picture on the board. Therein lies the difference. Once she decided to make it everyones business, it was everyones business and if she wanted everyone to coddle her and lie, then thats her own delusion. Was it done out of spite? maybe. was it done cause maybe the kid really is an attrocity? maybe. But in the end, everyone had the right to say what they wanted because she made it everyones business by posting the picture in the 1st place.
I refuse to go to that fucking thing.
what is the Baker rule,
you insisted I refer to it,
but I don't know what it is.
I assumed it had something to do with not posting members pics without permission or some shit. I could be wrong and probably am. I'm not here enough to fully understand vague references. I have to summarize.
Doesn't matter though. I digress on that point.
The crux of the issue is Thing broke the rules.
Don't like the rule? Big deal.
Ultimately it wasn't the rule that got Thing booted.
It was his response to the warnings.
baker rule is what made me remove that pic of you doing an ICP imitation.
Hoon Wrote:I assumed it had somehting to do with not posting members pics without permission or some shit. I could be wrong and probably am. I'm not here enough to fully understand vague references. I have to summarize.
Doesn't matter though. I digress on that point.
The crux of the issue is Thing broke the rules.
Don't like the rule? Big deal.
Ultimately it wasn't the rule that got Thing booted.
It was his response to the warnings.
Was the making fun of baby ugly the rule he broke? Is it because it was a baby? Or like if she posted pics of her husband and people were mocking him, would that be ok?
Damn,
Gonzo hit hard on substance,
AND tossed in a zinger......
GonzoStyle Wrote:Was the making fun of baby ugly the rule he broke? Is it because it was a baby? Or like if she posted pics of her husband and people were mocking him, would that be ok?
there has been MUCH insulting of kids and family in the past,
which made it odd how fast he jumped to her defense.......