This is so hypocritical. They make a new forum for rational, clean debate and dedicated to avoiding rebels and rulebreakers, yet they choose a notorious flamer who's had two previous accounts banned for breaking the rules as one of their mods.
This is so hypocritical. They make a new forum for rational, clean debate and dedicated to avoiding rebels and rulebreakers, yet they choose a notorious flamer who's had two previous accounts banned for breaking the rules as one of their mods.
I knew the_lion quite well, I was in a flame wars clan with him for several months. Simply because BES uses common flames and has an animal referance in his name does not mean that he must be a multi. We all know that poor flamers are a pair a penny and people with animal related names are just as common. If you legitimately think he is a multi, take it up with the mods. But calling someone a multy simply to antagonize is childish, petty, and small; and is not demonstrative of the civil, mature debators you claim to be.
The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.
black elk speaks wrote:my name, though it has an animal in the title, is actually the name of a native American shaman. all apologies for the confusion
It is also a Hawkwind song.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
"You can't handle the truth. Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Juan_Bottom wrote:May I please be informed as to why I didn't get in? Secret unappealable decisions are kinda Fascistist, you know?
QFT
I do not see why I would not be allowed to have reasonable arguments.
They just can't handle the truth.
actually, its the back biting insulting and foolishness that members that started this group don't like. in this forum, people just respectfully explain their views without being asses to each other. no insulting or belittling, just points of view. since you guys are usually belligerent, upi cannot be allowed into the folds of the fireside tavern. so sorry.
CrazyAnglican wrote:We will be adding new members again from time to time; so keep in touch if you are still interested.
So if we completely eliminate our back-biting insulting and foolishness in the general fora, we could possibly be let in in the future? However, those who are already in the forum can follow the rules there but be absurd to their heart's content in the open fora without repercussion? It very difficult not to see a double-standard being applied (not to mention that there are members who are just as back-biting already in the Tavern). And even the more sophisticated posters are losing quite a bit of respect by either pretending or looking away from this issue.
Tell me, ladies and gents: is it everything you hoped it would be and more?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Juan_Bottom wrote:May I please be informed as to why I didn't get in? Secret unappealable decisions are kinda Fascistist, you know?
QFT
I do not see why I would not be allowed to have reasonable arguments.
They just can't handle the truth.
actually, its the back biting insulting and foolishness that members that started this group don't like. in this forum, people just respectfully explain their views without being asses to each other. no insulting or belittling, just points of view. since you guys are usually belligerent, upi cannot be allowed into the folds of the fireside tavern. so sorry.
Well I fully support a forum to express your hatefull, backwards, fascist views. Just don't act like a bunch of self-righteous pricks by claiming you're all about civil debate and excluding people who you know are going to disagree with pretty much everything you say.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Juan_Bottom wrote:May I please be informed as to why I didn't get in? Secret unappealable decisions are kinda Fascistist, you know?
QFT
I do not see why I would not be allowed to have reasonable arguments.
They just can't handle the truth.
actually, its the back biting insulting and foolishness that members that started this group don't like. in this forum, people just respectfully explain their views without being asses to each other. no insulting or belittling, just points of view. since you guys are usually belligerent, upi cannot be allowed into the folds of the fireside tavern. so sorry.
Well I fully support a forum to express your hatefull, backwards, fascist views. Just don't act like a bunch of self-righteous pricks by claiming you're all about civil debate and excluding people who you know are going to disagree with pretty much everything you say.
it has nothing to do with disagreement. it has everything to do with the intrusive manner in which you do it. your quoted statement here is offered as case in point.
Snorri1234 wrote:Well I fully support a forum to express your hatefull, backwards, fascist views. Just don't act like a bunch of self-righteous pricks by claiming you're all about civil debate and excluding people who you know are going to disagree with pretty much everything you say.
it has nothing to do with disagreement. it has everything to do with the intrusive manner in which you do it. your quoted statement here is offered as case in point.
Sayeth the cock who does little but throw around gay-insults in Flame Wars.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
1st of all) I believe the phraase you all are looking for is innocent until proven guilty. All but one or two atheists ahve been excluded. No-one has even told me why I'm not in. I do not see why we should not be allowed to be in this clan
Snorri1234 wrote:I'm gonna send in my application again. And this time I demand the reason if they reject me.
We could request it now, I suppose. It seems rather ridiculous to me to refrain from indicating why a potential member was rejected. Is the responsible party ashamed? I would imagine that the triumvirate of a "civil discussion forum" would have few qualms with backing up their decision with some information on the logic behind it, if for no other reason than to shut us up.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
you guys don't get it. throwing tantrums like these will not get you in. this is how you handle every thing (that i have seen) when you see something that you don't like. you berate, insult and belittle. snorri, you are one of the worst, in my opinion.
mandyb wrote:Just who is in this secret society? Can we have a list of members?
check the list in the usergroup imo.
ill be honest, while obviously the topics covered presents a certain potential slant, it has been by in large civil from everyone involved. I do think there is an effort to try and keep an even keel about the actual discussion in there. As to how they are admitting people, i leave that to the scientists so to speak.
black elk speaks wrote:you guys don't get it. throwing tantrums like these will not get you in. this is how you handle every thing (that i have seen) when you see something that you don't like. you berate, insult and belittle. snorri, you are one of the worst, in my opinion.
Well excuse me Mr. "Smokingdude is a gay homo who likes cocks". I didn't realise your "don't criticise christians"-clan has magically put it's rules on the entire forum. I didn't get the memo from lack about it. I'm sure as hell going to patiently explain my view and act with kindness now when Napoleon Ier or someone else makes another racist and utterly untrue post. I am very much going to follow some kind of arbitrary rule-set for no good reason which the other side doesn't have to do it in the slightest. It sure makes a lot of sense.
Did you read this post by Neo?
Neoteny wrote:So if we completely eliminate our back-biting insulting and foolishness in the general fora, we could possibly be let in in the future? However, those who are already in the forum can follow the rules there but be absurd to their heart's content in the open fora without repercussion? It very difficult not to see a double-standard being applied (not to mention that there are members who are just as back-biting already in the Tavern). And even the more sophisticated posters are losing quite a bit of respect by either pretending or looking away from this issue.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
black elk speaks wrote:you guys don't get it. throwing tantrums like these will not get you in. this is how you handle every thing (that i have seen) when you see something that you don't like. you berate, insult and belittle. snorri, you are one of the worst, in my opinion.
My goal at this point is not to get in. I've already been rejected by your (or, in your defense, someone else's) childish biases. This "tantrum," as you've so condescendingly labeled it (how civil of you), is merely a display of my observations on the structure and function of the group. At this point, it's clearly not something that I would like to be a part of, and is definitely something I would be ashamed of leading.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
