What's new

Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like Jason Whitlock. There's a reason Rome always gives him a burn. He speaks truth that many don't want to hear.
 
With 2814 in on the game now, this is gittin kinda good, I think. Imma start a new thread in general discussion just to see if anyone wants to pursue these general topics in more depth.

Nice try. Moved and merged.

Although if write4u sees this thread his head may explode.
 
I thihnk the notion of "Oreo" implies there is a right way and a wrong way to be a person based on your level of skin pigmentation.

In that interview, it sounded to me like Whilock made a couple of valid points, and tossed in a few exaggerations as well. Nothing too unusual.
 
Eric, please stop trolling. You're a mod, you should know better.

I'm not a mod. I was one. I fully acknowledged I've walked closer to the line since then, but I'm still trying to err on the side of caution in that. I think I'm still well on the "appropriate" side.

Is it trolling to point out that people are adding in assumption that has a historical justification, but is not supported by the evidence? I don't think so, but if a moderator tells me I was misbehaving, i'll make sure never to do it again.
 
I'm not a mod. I was one. I fully acknowledged I've walked closer to the line since then, but I'm still trying to err on the side of caution in that. I think I'm still well on the "appropriate" side.

Is it trolling to point out that people are adding in assumption that has a historical justification, but is not supported by the evidence? I don't think so, but if a moderator tells me I was misbehaving, i'll make sure never to do it again.

Eric, you were never a mod. Remember that.
 
I thihnk the notion of "Oreo" implies there is a right way and a wrong way to be a person based on your level of skin pigmentation.

Yeah, Eric, I do too. I spoze that's why peoples use the term, or, more generally, the concept.
 
Is it trolling to point out that people are adding in assumption that has a historical justification, but is not supported by the evidence? I don't think so, but if a moderator tells me I was misbehaving, i'll make sure never to do it again.

Trollin is whatever the mods sez it is round these here parts, eh, Eric? And don't go axxin them to explains how or why neither, cause they aint gunna duz it.

I gotz a warnin for "trollin" because sometimes I address separate parts of a long-*** post in separate posts. I look at it as kinda like punctuation, likes new paragraphs in posts, or periods at the enda sentences, but, turns out, it aint like that at all.

It's TROLLIN, I tellya!
 
Aint is masterful at mischaracterizing what he's received warnings for. The way he posts has generated multiple complaints for cluttering up the board and disrupting its usability. If you need evidence that the way he posts screws up board functions I direct you to this screenshot.

rsz1screenshot.jpg


Try ignoring that.

For the record, I'll note that he's once again decided to go the "five posts in a row" route in this very thread.
 
Aint is masterful at mischaracterizing what he's received warnings for.
For the record, I'll note that he's once again decided to go the "five posts in a row" route in this very thread.

Well, Kicky, if you think I'm mischaracterizin anything, mebbe you, or some other mod, can explain what the issue is, eh? Nuthin has really been explained to me, repeated requests for clarification notwithstanding, other than by vague references, like yours just now, to "five posts in a row." How is that "trollin," I wonder?

To the extent that your "screen shot" explains anything, I take the explanation to be that you don't like me postin, and must therefore take some steps to stop, or at least limit, it. Is that the idea?
 
Last edited:
You've been told in the past numerous times. To the extent that you don't understand you're purposely choosing not to understand. I will direct you to the following discussion of the trolling rule and your behavior regarding it.

Our rules have the following provisions: Deliberate attempts to disrupt the usability of the boards will be considered trolling. These include ... bizarre formatting of posts ... many new threads started right after each other, etc

I fail to see the distinction between what he's doing and "bizarre formatting of posts" or "many new threads started right after each other." Is there a meaningful distinction between many threads one after another and many posts one after another? They produce the same effect: a cluttered unreadable board.

In addition it shouldn't take a genius to look at the screenshot above and determine that you've effectively defeated the ignore function.

That's your explanation and we (or at least I) am not going to debate it with you. You've been told to stop, once privately and now once publicly. I'll let you imagine what the next step is.
 
For the love of Jesus Christ, (you know, the guy who got banned for doing nothing) BAN THIS HUMAN JAR OF MAYONAISE!
 
You've been told in the past numerous times.

No, I have not.

we (or at least I) am not going to debate it with you. You've been told to stop, once privately and now once publicly. I'll let you imagine what the next step is.


I come into a thread which I started, but have been away from, and which has been moved without me having any knowledge of that, and see that several posters have made comments in my absence. So I respond to them separately, and that's "trollin?" You may see it, but I can't.

As far as your citation of the "rules" go, a post is not a "new thread," is it? Nevermind, I forgot, you just said, you're not gunna "debate," anything, with "debate" meaning "respond to requests for clarification."

Don't debate it then. But don't go around, as you have, claimin that everybody knows what the standards are, that mods are never arbitrary or capricious, and that "personal animosities" have nuthin to do with who gets punished. Your personal complaint seems to be that, even though you have me on ignore, I post anyway, and that disturbs you.
 
No, I have not.

I am personally aware of two PMs you have received on this board and multiple that you received on the previous incarnation of the board. Furthermore, I have access to copies of those private messages that have been sent to you by the moderating staff since the board was reset.

So yes, you have. And you can't bluff me on this issue.


I come into a thread which I started, but have been away from, and which has been moved without me having any knowledge of that, and see that several posters have made comments in my absence. So I respond to them separately, and that's "trollin?" You may see it, but I can't.

You've been asked to either multi-quote posts (a function that is available on this board) or to edit your previous posts rather than posting multiple times. In one thread you had something like 16 of the most recent 25 posts at one point. In this thread and others you choose to respond to a single post multiple times.

If you want to fight it, keep on posting like you have. We'll see what happens.

As far as your citation of the "rules" go, a post is not a "new thread," is it? Nevermind, I forgot, you just said, you're not gunna "debate," anything, with "debate" meaning "respond to requests for clarification."

This specific point is addressed in the sample I quoted you.

Don't debate it then. But don't go around, as you have, claimin that everybody knows what the standards are, that mods are never arbitrary or capricious, and that "personal animosities" have nuthin to do with who gets punished. Your personal complaint seems to be that, even though you have me on ignore, I post anyway, and that disturbs you.

Moderation is done on a consensus system. When you received your previous PMs regarding the subject that was after several mods decided to send you the PM rather than any individual mod. Additionally, I'm hardly the only one that's complained about it. If you feel that everything is being driven by a single moderator feel free to complain to Jason or colton.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top