One-way PMs are rude.

[Hunter Rose]

Mike, this is my response to your PM to me;


See you're spreading "reputation" around again.

What the hell do you think that accomplishes?

*sigh*

Mike, the reason I go about 'spreading' reputation is not out of wholesale pettiness, it's because of the board parameters.

I would hardly ever give out reputation if it weren't for this;

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to "........" again."

Get it?

So I look around for reasonable and unreasonable posts that somehow deserve positive or negative rep respectively.

Only on a rare few occasions have I doled any out for no other reason than frustration with a poster for being an ass. But even then it is to allow me to give positive rep to someone I really want to give it to.

I don't give a great big fucking shit about rep except for when I really think that a board member should have that positive rep. That way, passers-by can instantly recognize who is more likely worth listening to... and not just according to me.

But you, Mike, seem to have this image of me giggling and throwing rep around like it's affecting anyone who I give it to. Frankly, if anyone gets bent out of shape over receiving negative rep, that's pathetic.

You have to create this image of me because you want to think of me that way, not because that's what I am. You go right ahead and do whatever it takes to pretend whatever you want. You've failed to back up assertions about my positions and myself. You've resorted to attacking me and even abused your moderator privilieges by bringing up habits of mine only a moderator can see. So many times you have more than deserved (http://www.debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=51312&page=4&highlight=hunter+bullshit)negative rep from me, but I frankly didn't need to dispense any when I got around to your posts as I had already 'spread' enough around to reward the posters I wanted to.

Until recently.

You see, I went looking for one of the examples of mention in order to create a hyperlink to that Hypercrites! post. I do this by either hitting 'quote' or 'edit' in order to get the post reference number, then I hit 'preview' and then follow and copy the link. Unfortunately I accidentally hit 'submit' instead of 'preview' which wound up bumping the thread. I could have deleted it, but instead I said 'fuck it' and left it there.

Lo and behold, I get a 'fuck off'.

Well, I would have simply explained and apologized if I had been asked why I bumped that admittedly unflattering post. Well, it was and accident, not a petty poke at you. I'm sorry for that.

Meanwhile I figured 'fair is fair', and I had some rep to unload so I could get around to someone who deserved it. In this case it was just something I should have got around to on principle.

If the 'fuck off' wasn't from you, then you were framed... but I doubt that's the case.
I probably would've red-dotted you eventually anyway.

What worries me is that you care about this enough to PM me over it.

I really am disappointed about you, Mike. You're not stupid, but you don't follow through (http://www.debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=39496&page=14&highlight=definition+evidence) in debate... that makes you transparent to me. I know you're not an asshole, despite the fact that you can be one. I know you are capable of admitting you are wrong... when you're finally pinned down.

But I've really fucking had it with you.

No, you're not the worst, and I can think of a dozen assholes on this board I'd be more concerned about if they had Mod privileges (libs and cons alike).

Unless you really decide to take a thoughtful look at my gripe with you and tell me, in your own words whether you get it or not so that I know you're not just a hammerhead, don't bother PM'ing me again. If you really want to go over it, just ask me in CE somewhere.

I'll still go after you on the issues, I'll still bring up past issues, and I promise I won't bring up your missteps with your Mod privileges unless you really do need reminding.

But drop this bullshit, and I'll try to do the same.

-HR

PS: FWIW, I began a reply on Hypercrites! which read, "I understand that I don't know the whole story, but now you know what I know."


Now Mike, this would have remained a private message if you weren't such a dick.

Please don't PM people unless you allow them to respond.

[Mike]

Mike, this is my response to your PM to me;



Now Mike, this would have remained a private message if you weren't such a dick.

Please don't PM people unless you allow them to respond.It is indeed out of "wholesale pettiness". Don't forget, I've seen your predations in that regard. You've hopped from one conservative poster to another time and time again, posting your negative reputation offerings. You don't like me seeing it? Tough!

You're a petty little man, Hunter.

[Hunter Rose]

It is indeed out of "wholesale pettiness". Don't forget, I've seen your predations in that regard. You've hopped from one conservative poster to another time and time again, posting your negative reputation offerings. You don't like me seeing it? Tough!

You're a petty little man, Hunter.

You're the one this is important to, not me. Like I said, I could hardly give a fuck what you think even though I once wanted to respect you.

What you call 'conservatives' aren't much more than willfully ignorant idiots.

I'm glad you love lording your moderator abilities over someone you aren't intellectually equipped to deal with. Enjoy this last, petty resort of yours.

Meanwhile, believe in whatever fantasy you wish, just leave me out of it you pathetic turd.

[Mike]

You're the one this is important to, not me. Like I said, I could hardly give a fuck what you think even though I once wanted to respect you.

What you call 'conservatives' aren't much more than willfully ignorant idiots.

I'm glad you love lording your moderator abilities over someone you aren't intellectually equipped to deal with. Enjoy this last, petty resort of yours.

Meanwhile, believe in whatever fantasy you wish, just leave me out of it you pathetic turd.That's a helluva good excuse. Every single person on this board with a "red" reputation button can credit YOU personally for it, since you've chosen that route to express your discontent with conservatives that way. That's cowardly, and small-minded. Willfully ignorant idiots? Why, hell, anyone knows they shouldn't be even allowed to comment on your righteous facts...

LOL

Its worth noting (at least to me) that the main "topic" that got you all exercised about me was the Ohio elections. You cited numerous "sources" that claimed cheating gave Bush the nod. Not evidence...supposition only. You blathered over and over again that the supposition itself comprised proof, and got around -- finally -- to calling me names over it.

That's the extent (full) of your grandiose ability to debate. It never occurred to you -- not even once -- that the Kerry campaign would have filed suit it they had actually found "evidence" (pesky little word, that one...) that would stand up in court. You're a partisan hack, period. One with a fairly good vocabulary, and lots of spare time to spend spreading your wisdom around, but a hack, nevertheless. Why else would anyone try to discredit others with "reputation"? That's kind of like whispering behind your hand to try to get the opposition to quit talking.

[Woodrow]

THis is hilarious. Spreading reputation around like it really amounts to a hill of beans.

I did find this line really hilarious:


You're not stupid, but you don't follow through (http://www.debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=39496&page=14&highlight=definition+evidence) in debate...


Hmm, does it include those who claim they will answer the subject of a post at their leisure yet never do?

Or those who enter a thread and give their word they will "answer a thread's topic the next day" yet never do?

ROTFLMMFAO!

[Hunter Rose]

THis is hilarious. Spreading reputation around like it really amounts to a hill of beans.

I did find this line really hilarious:



Hmm, does it include those who claim they will answer the subject of a post at their leisure yet never do?

Or those who enter a thread and give their word they will "answer a thread's topic the next day" yet never do?

ROTFLMMFAO!

Oh yeah... forgot about that. I'll get to it.

Compared to the hundred or so threads you've run away from, I can hardly feel bad about missing one.

Don't point to a flaw in someone's track record when you're in a wheel chair.

[Hunter Rose]

That's a helluva good excuse. Every single person on this board with a "red" reputation button can credit YOU personally for it, since you've chosen that route to express your discontent with conservatives that way. That's cowardly, and small-minded. Willfully ignorant idiots? Why, hell, anyone knows they shouldn't be even allowed to comment on your righteous facts...

LOL Facts are facts asshole.

I've given 'cons' positive rep too dickhead. How convenient you leave out that 'fact' to try to make a point. I only spread it around to give it to those who deserve it... a fault of the system, not mine.

Your 'exposing' me for spreading rep is a sad admission that you can't hold your own in earnest debate with me.

Give up your mod privileges, your abuse is petty and disgusting.

[A Voice]

Mike,

You are no longer a moderator at DBS. Due to a computer glitch your privileges keep popping back. Since we cannot fix the problem easily it would be best for all concerned if you would create a new handle: Mike2. Michael-King o' the Gypsies, Up Yours - whatever.

At the moment you are abusing privileges you aren't supposed to have and that is not very nice.

Please consider this voluntary method of giving up your privileges.

A Voice

PS - And Hunter Rose is correct: One-way PMs are rude.

[A Voice]

THis is hilarious. Spreading reputation around like it really amounts to a hill of beans.

I did find this line really hilarious:



Hmm, does it include those who claim they will answer the subject of a post at their leisure yet never do?

Or those who enter a thread and give their word they will "answer a thread's topic the next day" yet never do?

ROTFLMMFAO!

Woody, It's Mike that is throwing a fit over this, no one else.

[Mike]

Mike,

You are no longer a moderator at DBS. Due to a computer glitch your privileges keep popping back. Since we cannot fix the problem easily it would be best for all concerned if you would create a new handle: Mike2. Michael-King o' the Gypsies, Up Yours - whatever.

At the moment you are abusing privileges you aren't supposed to have and that is not very nice.

Please consider this voluntary method of giving up your privileges.

A Voice

PS - And Hunter Rose is correct: One-way PMs are rude.Plain bullcrap, lady. Did you happen to notice the icon below my "join date"? That's the way that I choose to allow private communications with me. That's not rude at all...its my choice. Hunter's too damn busy giving people "negative reputation" to avail himself of the chosen method to communicate with me? His problem, not mine.

You might remember Lib yelling the same thing a few weeks ago. The same icon was available to be clicked, and used for whatever private communications he wanted, too.

Either you're stupid, or you simply elect to ignore facts. Maybe a bit of both.

Now, about "abusing privileges". That's bull, too. The "negative reputation" thing is Hunter's gig, and always has been. Take a look yourself at it. That was information to which I was privy well before resigning, and I've informed Lib of the problem with reappearing "privileges" myself.

I'll bet if you look at all the "red" reputations, the vast majority of them will have "negative" reps placed by Hunter, in twos or threes, and always against conservative posters.

[Hunter Rose]

Plain bullcrap, lady. Did you happen to notice the icon below my "join date"? That's the way that I choose to allow private communications with me. That's not rude at all...its my choice. Hunter's too damn busy giving people "negative reputation" to avail himself of the chosen method to communicate with me? His problem, not mine.

You might remember Lib yelling the same thing a few weeks ago. The same icon was available to be clicked, and used for whatever private communications he wanted, too.

Either you're stupid, or you simply elect to ignore facts. Maybe a bit of both.

Now, about "abusing privileges". That's bull, too. The "negative reputation" thing is Hunter's gig, and always has been. Take a look yourself at it. That was information to which I was privy well before resigning, and I've informed Lib of the problem with reappearing "privileges" myself.

I'll bet if you look at all the "red" reputations, the vast majority of them will have "negative" reps placed by Hunter, in twos or threes, and always against conservative posters.


Umm... idiot... you just made the case against yourself.

That's over your head, isn't it? :redface:

Are you going to admit that I've given 'conservative' posters positive rep, or are you going to continue with your self-defeating bullshit?

The more you think you can fuck with me on this, the more of an ass you'll prove yourself to be.

Quit now.

[Mike]

Umm... idiot... you just made the case against yourself.

That's over your head, isn't it? :redface:

Are you going to admit that I've given 'conservative' posters positive rep, or are you going to continue with your self-defeating bullshit?

The more you think you can fuck with me on this, the more of an ass you'll prove yourself to be.

Quit now.Don't you get it, hunter, or are you too taken up with rage? Any information concerning "reputation" installations that I'm privy to came about while I was still an active moderator.

You're beating yourself to death. Any "positive" reps given by you must be pretty current, because your gig -- historically -- has been otherwise, and you know it.

Go yak about election problems in Ohio, or something...maybe the inside job on the World Trade Center.

[Tayken]

Umm... idiot... you just made the case against yourself.

That's over your head, isn't it? :redface:

Are you going to admit that I've given 'conservative' posters positive rep, or are you going to continue with your self-defeating bullshit?

The more you think you can fuck with me on this, the more of an ass you'll prove yourself to be.

Quit now.

http://www.calm-your-screaming-baby.com/images/crying-baby.jpg
Hunter Rose

I always thought it was people like A Voice and Lefty who took the time day in and day out to give their fellow liberals points and to make sure that all conservatives got negative points. I never thought that Hunter would stoop that low. You have to be dedicated to see that someone gets a positive or a negative rep.

[Woodrow]

Oh yeah... forgot about that. I'll get to it.

Compared to the hundred or so threads you've run away from, I can hardly feel bad about missing one.

Don't point to a flaw in someone's track record when you're in a wheel chair.

Asshole,

That is yet another lie. The problem is I do not run away from threads. Your favorite debate tool is to claim you will answer the topic of a thread at another time and then divert with some foolish "challenge" that you relieves you from actually having to prove your point.

[Woodrow]

Woody, It's Mike that is throwing a fit over this, no one else.

Once again a voice, as a poster, fails to read and comprehend the discussion.

Mike is throwing a fit? Who is the moron that started the thread? Have you actually read it? Or any of the responses before once again sticking your ignorant nose into a "flame war"?

Your a moron.

[User Name]

I think it's funny that a voice actually joined in on the attack thread rather than shutting it down.

shows the true colors of that one for sure.

[A Voice]

Once again a voice, as a poster, fails to read and comprehend the discussion.

Mike is throwing a fit? Who is the moron that started the thread? Have you actually read it? Or any of the responses before once again sticking your ignorant nose into a "flame war"?

Your a moron.

Woody: Mike starting this this imbroglio by pm'ing HR about receiveing a negative rep from him. Then doesn't allow HR to respond in kind. Mike is making the fuss about reputation marks. Hunter is complaining about Mike's one way communications.

Mike: pm'ing someone and not allowing pm's in return is just rude. Pointing to your IM status is silly. You are forcing someone to set up seperate software in order to comunicate with you and then are saying it's the same thing. It isn't.

I cannot check into someone else's reputation history. That is not a part of the software program to the best of my knowledge. More than that why should anyone care to do so? Why do you care than Hunter Rose has given you a couple of bad rep marks. You should see the ones that Tayken and Bubba have left me in the past. Most people don't even know how the system works or what it means.

A mistake in the system software continues to allow you moderator privileges, what concerns me is that you are using those privileges to harass another poster. This is bad form by any standard.

A Voice

[A Voice]

I think it's funny that a voice actually joined in on the attack thread rather than shutting it down.

shows the true colors of that one for sure.

It's not an attack thread since Mike will not allow pm's he takes the risk of having to deal with these issues in public.

The character issue is Mike's for using moderator privileges to harass another user - end of story.

[A Voice]

I was not aware until now that there was a second thread in Current Events. I have moved the thread in qustion to Abuse Records with no redirect. I have closed the thread as well.

Hunter will get a day off for an attack thread.

A Voice

[Tayken]

Once again a voice, as a poster, fails to read and comprehend the discussion.

Mike is throwing a fit? Who is the moron that started the thread? Have you actually read it? Or any of the responses before once again sticking your ignorant nose into a "flame war"?

Your a moron.

Yep that is her style. She failed to read the thread not too long ago and threatened me with permanent banishment. When I pointed out her mistake she then lied that she had admitted to the board that she was wrong and had apologized. When I pointed that out she refused to apologize. She's a real piece of work.

[Mike]

It's not an attack thread since Mike will not allow pm's he takes the risk of having to deal with these issues in public.

The character issue is Mike's for using moderator privileges to harass another user - end of story.Lady, are you reinforced concrete from the neck, up, or what?

I do allow responses...always have regardless of what Lib or you (or Hunter) bleat. The ICQ icon is obvious and usable for anyone who wishes to post a PM to me.

That's my CHOSEN manner of receiving private communications.

GET IT?

No, I suppose you don't!

[A Voice]

Lady, are you reinforced concrete from the neck, up, or what?

I do allow responses...always have regardless of what Lib or you (or Hunter) bleat. The ICQ icon is obvious and usable for anyone who wishes to post a PM to me.

That's my CHOSEN manner of receiving private communications.

GET IT?

No, I suppose you don't!

Mike, did you receive the message I sent you yesterday via your chosen form of communication? If so, what did I say in it?

A Voice

[Fair &Balanced Who Ca]

Lady, are you reinforced concrete from the neck, up, or what?

I do allow responses...always have regardless of what Lib or you (or Hunter) bleat. The ICQ icon is obvious and usable for anyone who wishes to post a PM to me.

That's my CHOSEN manner of receiving private communications.

GET IT?

No, I suppose you don't!

ICQ is shit software.

Nobody in their right mind downloads that garbage.

[A Voice]

I have now sent Mike two seperate ICQ messages, let'se see if he gets them and responds.

A Voice

[Mike]

Mike, did you receive the message I sent you yesterday via your chosen form of communication? If so, what did I say in it?

A VoiceI have absolutely no reason whatever to respond to ANY private communications from you.

You seem hung up on PMs. Your problem, not mine. You think I'm rude? Tough! Is that a crime punishable by banning?

Now, of course, you can do it to me any time it pleases you.

Do it, why not?

[Mike]

I have now sent Mike two seperate ICQ messages, let'se see if he gets them and responds.

A VoiceWhat the hell do you mean by "let's see blah blah blah"? How I choose to deal with private messages is my business, not yours. Shove it lady (and I use the term pretty loosely) Whether I "get them" or not isn't your business, and you can absolutely count on not getting any response. Gawd, you're pathetic.

ICQ is a respected messaging system that's been around for a long time.

[A Voice]

What the hell do you mean by "let's see blah blah blah"? How I choose to deal with private messages is my business, not yours. Shove it lady (and I use the term pretty loosely) Whether I "get them" or not isn't your business, and you can absolutely count on not getting any response. Gawd, you're pathetic.

ICQ is a respected messaging system that's been around for a long time.

What I am trying to prove is that you only use one-way communications. You claim to use ICQ for messages, but I see no evidence what-so-ever that you actually read what is sent you. If this is the case, the premise of this thread is just.

[A Voice]

What the hell do you mean by "let's see blah blah blah"? How I choose to deal with private messages is my business, not yours. Shove it lady (and I use the term pretty loosely) Whether I "get them" or not isn't your business, and you can absolutely count on not getting any response. Gawd, you're pathetic.

ICQ is a respected messaging system that's been around for a long time.

Mike, I have some board business to attend to with you and if I don't get some proof that you are receiving these messages I will have no choice but to take up these issues in public.

A Voice

[Mike]

Mike, I have some board business to attend to with you and if I don't get some proof that you are receiving these messages I will have no choice but to take up these issues in public.

A VoiceDo whatever you want. You have absolutely NO legitimate "board business" to conduct with me. If you want to "ban" me, cite the rule you wish to enforce, and "carry on".

Your "premise" is immaterial to me, and all you're proving is that you're a vindictive b**ch.

Just so you'll know, my regular PM box is open to two classes of individuals...moderators and friends. You're nominally one of them

[Mike]

Now, on the other hand, my PM box here may register full. When the Super Moderator moniker (thankfully) vanished, so did my storage room of up to 500 messages. Now its 50, and I have no intention of deleting several hundred PMs so you can yell at me -- about anything.

[A Voice]

Now, on the other hand, my PM box here may register full. When the Super Moderator moniker (thankfully) vanished, so did my storage room of up to 500 messages. Now its 50, and I have no intention of deleting several hundred PMs so you can yell at me -- about anything.

Fair enough.

[User Name]

It's not an attack thread since Mike will not allow pm's he takes the risk of having to deal with these issues in public.

The character issue is Mike's for using moderator privileges to harass another user - end of story.I didn't know that we had to respond to any pm's that we recieve.. or accept them.

please to be pointing out where in the rules this is mentioned?

I thought we as adults had a right to decide in what way we are contacted.

and if the guy doesn't accept pm's that means that the rules of the forum are to ignored?

this is insanity.

what other reasons can members ignore the rules of the forums?

[User Name]

What I am trying to prove is that you only use one-way communications. You claim to use ICQ for messages, but I see no evidence what-so-ever that you actually read what is sent you. If this is the case, the premise of this thread is just.why would an attack thread be just?

oh yeah... because he needs to prove to you that someone can PM him.

tell me..
even if he could be PM'ed can't he just ignore them?

can I start an attack thread on anyone because they choose to ignore me?

that's all you are establishing anyways.

so how about it?

[User Name]

why would an attack thread be just?

oh yeah... because he needs to prove to you that someone can PM him.

tell me..
even if he could be PM'ed can't he just ignore them?

can I start an attack thread on anyone because they choose to ignore me?

that's all you are establishing anyways.

so how about it?don't even have the balls to tell me why I recieved the bad karma on this?

at least be strong enough to answer the questions?

[User Name]

why would an attack thread be just?

oh yeah... because he needs to prove to you that someone can PM him.

tell me..
even if he could be PM'ed can't he just ignore them?

can I start an attack thread on anyone because they choose to ignore me?

that's all you are establishing anyways.

so how about it?I recieved bad reputation for this post.

it strikes me as odd that there is no name showing who gave me the bad reputation.

it seems odd that someone can have an attack thread like this made about them because "not everyone has access to him to communicate with him" and I recieve no notice of who is given me bad reputation so I can have a way to communicate with that person.

why is this?

[Denny]

I recieved bad reputation for this post.

it strikes me as odd that there is no name showing who gave me the bad reputation.

it seems odd that someone can have an attack thread like this made about them because "not everyone has access to him to communicate with him" and I recieve no notice of who is given me bad reputation so I can have a way to communicate with that person.

why is this?

It's just the way it is. Rep points were meant to be a mechanism through which posters could anonymously rate other posters.

I get disgusting, vile things posted in the comment box all the time by people who don't bother to identify themselves.

I consider them a badge of pride. If I've made someone so pissed they made the effort to click on rep points, and they're the kind of person who would say things like that, I must have done something right.

[User Name]

It's just the way it is. Rep points were meant to be a mechanism through which posters could anonymously rate other posters.

I get disgusting, vile things posted in the comment box all the time by people who don't bother to identify themselves.

I consider them a badge of pride. If I've made someone so pissed they made the effort to click on rep points, and they're the kind of person who would say things like that, I must have done something right.Yeah.
so we have one way in which people can have one way communications set up in the forums coded arcit\ecture..

I get the idea.

the question is why would there be a loophole that allows for attack threads to be made because of one way communications when it's a part of the forums setup to have one way communications?

[A Voice]

Yeah.
so we have one way in which people can have one way communications set up in the forums coded arcit\ecture..

I get the idea.

the question is why would there be a loophole that allows for attack threads to be made because of one way communications when it's a part of the forums setup to have one way communications?

It's the way the software was built, we have no control over the reputation aspect of the software.

As for Mike's "attack" thread. Mike still had Moderator privileges due to a glitch in the software - he gave up his position in January 2007. As moderator he could see who was leaving him reputation points.

So Mike abused has Moderator privileges (which he shouldn't have anymore) and harassed another poster about the reputation he left. Mike pm'd Hunter Rose and said "See you're spreading "reputation" around again." But when Hunter Rose tried to pm him back the message was refused.

I would rather that Hunter Rose had come to a Moderator for help with this, the thread was valid. Mike left him no way of replying to the message.

Had you read the entire thread, you would know this.

[User Name]

It's the way the software was built, we have no control over the reputation aspect of the software.

As for Mike's "attack" thread. Mike still had Moderator privileges due to a glitch in the software - he gave up his position in January 2007. As moderator he could see who was leaving him reputation points.

So Mike abused has Moderator privileges (which he shouldn't have anymore) and harassed another poster about the reputation he left. Mike pm'd Hunter Rose and said "See you're spreading "reputation" around again." But when Hunter Rose tried to pm him back the message was refused.

I would rather that Hunter Rose had come to a Moderator for help with this, the thread was valid. Mike left him no way of replying to the message.

Had you read the entire thread, you would know this.I have read the entire thread.

there is as you admit a one way communication setup in the arcitecture of this forums program.

and someone was allowed to start an attack thread based on the fact that someone else used a different one way communication.

any one way communication that is allowed here kind of makes the fact that it was because of one way communication that an attack thread is allowed kind of stupid.

but I guess i just have to accept that one way communication is allowed here... and that someone may start an attack thread because one way communication is allowed here.

[A Voice]

I have read the entire thread.

there is as you admit a one way communication setup in the arcitecture of this forums program.

and someone was allowed to start an attack thread based on the fact that someone else used a different one way communication.

any one way communication that is allowed here kind of makes the fact that it was because of one way communication that an attack thread is allowed kind of stupid.

but I guess i just have to accept that one way communication is allowed here... and that someone may start an attack thread because one way communication is allowed here.

I'm sorry I can't seem to explain this well enough. Had you really read the thread you would've seen that I tested Mike's other methods (instant messaging) only to find that he never received those messages either.

If a poster makes it impossible to communicate privitely, starting a thread to address them may be the only way to reach them. Mike shot himself in the foot, by harassing another person and not allowing that person to respond.

[maria]

It's just the way it is. Rep points were meant to be a mechanism through which posters could anonymously rate other posters.

I get disgusting, vile things posted in the comment box all the time by people who don't bother to identify themselves.

I consider them a badge of pride. If I've made someone so pissed they made the effort to click on rep points, and they're the kind of person who would say things like that, I must have done something right.

LOL me too, Denny! Here are some of mine from this last month:

Thread Date Comment
Another failed liberal... 08-21-2007 06:32 PM No, just stupid bitches like you. You rancid cunt.

Abortion Pills are Safe 08-21-2007 12:38 PM let us know when eggs and sperm can grow up into humans on their own

Jose Padilla case goes... 08-20-2007 04:46 PM air head

Why Terrorists Aren’t... 08-08-2007 07:56 PM Supid cunt.

[User Name]

I'm sorry I can't seem to explain this well enough. Had you really read the thread you would've seen that I tested Mike's other methods (instant messaging) only to find that he never received those messages either.

If a poster makes it impossible to communicate privitely, starting a thread to address them may be the only way to reach them. Mike shot himself in the foot, by harassing another person and not allowing that person to respond.so if I send someone a pm and get no response I am allowed to start an attack thread?

[User Name]

I'm sorry I can't seem to explain this well enough. Had you really read the thread you would've seen that I tested Mike's other methods (instant messaging) only to find that he never received those messages either.

If a poster makes it impossible to communicate privitely, starting a thread to address them may be the only way to reach them. Mike shot himself in the foot, by harassing another person and not allowing that person to respond.also can you show me the rule that states that someone has to allow someone else a way to communicate privately with them?.

I am sickened that this flagrant abuse of the rules is being supported by a moderator.

[A Voice]

so if I send someone a pm and get no response I am allowed to start an attack thread?

No, you may not. No one is ever required to respond to a pm for any reason.

also can you show me the rule that states that someone has to allow someone else a way to communicate privately with them?.

I am sickened that this flagrant abuse of the rules is being supported by a moderator.

First things first, I know that no explanation I give you will be accepted. But you asked and I'll answer.

If someone sends you an acusatory or threatening pm and when you try to respond your pm is bounced back because the user has turned off that feature - yes, you may respond in public in the abuse reports thread. I would prefer you take the issue to a moderator, that said, if someone is being a dick, they deserve what they get.

There is no rule about this, it is about common courtesy. The poster in question sent a pm the Hunter Rose and made it impossible to respond in kind. That's plain rude.

[User Name]

No, you may not. No one is ever required to respond to a pm for any reason.



First things first, I know that no explanation I give you will be accepted. But you asked and I'll answer.

If someone sends you an acusatory or threatening pm and when you try to respond your pm is bounced back because the user has turned off that feature - yes, you may respond in public in the abuse reports thread. I would prefer you take the issue to a moderator, that said, if someone is being a dick, they deserve what they get.

There is no rule about this, it is about common courtesy. The poster in question sent a pm the Hunter Rose and made it impossible to respond in kind. That's plain rude.So is some of the terms that people put into their reputation posts.

so are are some of the things that are said in these forums.

attack threads are not allowed if someone is rude in any other way but this one.

hows this for common courtesy, you give the smack down on all attack threads despite the reason they are started.

it's funny that you state htere is no rule like the kind I asked for... and yet there is an attack thread rule that was in violation in response to rudeness which is allowed on these forums.


I see rudeness all over this site.

so what you are saying is that one member was rude to another and that is why this attack thread is allowed.

got it.

got to give it to those cum guzzling moderators. they support rule violators for breaking the rules.

.

[Denny]

LOL me too, Denny! Here are some of mine from this last month:

Doesn't take a genious to figure out who's suspect number-one. The spelling errors give away that at least one (if not more, though the system limits you from piling up on one person) is from a certain mariner whose name shall remain Dannavy.

[User Name]

Doesn't take a genious to figure out who's suspect number-one. The spelling errors give away that at least one (if not more, though the system limits you from piling up on one person) is from a certain mariner whose name shall remain Dannavy.Sure.

it's an allowed one way communication set up in which you can be rude to someone.

but you try to have another one way communication system and then people can break the rules.


pure bullshit of course.

[A Voice]

So is some of the terms that people put into their reputation posts.

so are are some of the things that are said in these forums.

attack threads are not allowed if someone is rude in any other way but this one.

hows this for common courtesy, you give the smack down on all attack threads despite the reason they are started.

it's funny that you state htere is no rule like the kind I asked for... and yet there is an attack thread rule that was in violation in response to rudeness which is allowed on these forums.


I see rudeness all over this site.

so what you are saying is that one member was rude to another and that is why this attack thread is allowed.

got it.

got to give it to those cum guzzling moderators. they support rule violators for breaking the rules.

.
Like I said, nothing I say will make any difference to you, but you have reduce yourself to vulgarity so why would I bother with you at all?

Then I noticed your signiature. Greenrage was banned for that post and you've just proven my point.

A Voice

[User Name]

Like I said, nothing I say will make any difference to you, but you have reduce yourself to vulgarity so why would I bother with you at all?

Then I noticed your signiature. Greenrage was banned for that post and you've just proven my point.

A VoiceYeah you banned greenrage for making the post he made that was in violation of the rules.

the person that started this attack thread which is against the rules has your support.

two seperate incidents.

if your point is that you pick and choose when to enfore the rules then yes your point is very well made.

the question is why are you in support of this rule violator so much?

the target of the thread was in no violation of the forums rules (or at least nt in violation of the forums rules in regards to the topic of the initial post of this thread)..

that person may be rude but that is not a bannable offence.

I used vulgarity in the post to you and you did not ban me... because I did not break the forums rules in doing so.

rudeness is not a reason to allow a member to break the forums rules.

so why is this persons attack thread gaining your support?

why are we allowed a one way communication system in the form of reputation if you arte against one way communications?

the reason nothing you will say will change my mind on this is because you are allowing a rule to be broken. more than that supporting the rule breaker.

so you are right on that one.

[User Name]

So is some of the terms that people put into their reputation posts.

so are are some of the things that are said in these forums.

attack threads are not allowed if someone is rude in any other way but this one.

hows this for common courtesy, you give the smack down on all attack threads despite the reason they are started.

it's funny that you state htere is no rule like the kind I asked for... and yet there is an attack thread rule that was in violation in response to rudeness which is allowed on these forums.


I see rudeness all over this site.

so what you are saying is that one member was rude to another and that is why this attack thread is allowed.

got it.

got to give it to those cum guzzling moderators. they support rule violators for breaking the rules.

.I recieved a one way communication stating I was rude for this post. I thought that one way communication is considered rude.

why is one way communication of this type allowed and another not?

anyways.

have fun with your excuses... I see them for the bullshit they are.

[A Voice]

I recieved a one way communication stating I was rude for this post. I thought that one way communication is considered rude.

why is one way communication of this type allowed and another not?

anyways.

have fun with your excuses... I see them for the bullshit they are.

Well, I see you for the bullshit you are, so we're even.

[User Name]

Well, I see you for the bullshit you are, so we're even.what bullshit have I stated on this?

I have detailed what your bullshit is.

this is new in our discussion.

or is this monkey see monkey do from you?

what bullshit have I stated in this discussion?

I stated that your excuses are bullshit and you turn around and call me bullshit?

what about that vulgar rudeness you complained about?

just had to try some out for yourself?

[A Voice]

what bullshit have I stated on this?

I have detailed what your bullshit is.

this is new in our discussion.

or is this monkey see monkey do from you?

what bullshit have I stated in this discussion?

I stated that your excuses are bullshit and you turn around and call me bullshit?

what about that vulgar rudeness you complained about?

just had to try some out for yourself?
I give as good as I get.

Now, why don't you take Tayken's cock out of your mouth and run along.

[User Name]

I give as good as I get.

Now, why don't you take Tayken's cock out of your mouth and run along.LOL.

yeah.

I called your excuses bullshit so you called me bullshit.

very equal there.

how long ago were you taking about vulgarity?

bet you wished you hadn't given me that negative reputation for my rudeness now.