All in favor of banning Emma the Troll?

Emma Walker is the most recent childish, ignorant, poorly educated, ugly, nasty, disgusting, little troll to disturb the flow of things in the Cellar. She has very quickly proven that she knows nothing, thinks she knows everything, and will annoy and alienate every person on the board.

I think so.

Too bad people couldn't just refrain from responding to her. It would be interesting to see how long she would last then.

Otherwise ...ban her. What she is doing is no different from the prank calls teenager used to do back in the day.

We've got 100% so far in favor of banning. By the way, I was never as bad as she is.

Sadly, it will fuel her mis-informed self-importance, but at least she'll have to bug someone else about it. Or maybe she'll actually fit in at Principia Discordia. It'll certainly be a challenge for her to stand out there, in the presence of so many trolls who are so much better, smarter (and hotter) than she is. They probably won't mind the pics, though.

The smarter they think they are, the more it hurts when they get beaten. Fortunately she will count this one as a victory so we need feel no guilt.

Ban :thumbsdn:

I don't care how she feels about it as long as she's feeling it somewhere else.

ban your face

[COLOR="Magenta"][SIZE="4"][CENTER]Starring_Emma is the COOLEST[/CENTER][/SIZE][SIZE="3"][CENTER]Starring_Emma is the COOLEST[/CENTER][/SIZE][SIZE="2"][CENTER]Starring_Emma is the COOLEST[/CENTER][/SIZE][SIZE="1"][CENTER]Starring_Emma is the COOLEST[/CENTER][/SIZE][/COLOR][COLOR="Lime"] [SIZE="1"][CENTER]Starring_Emma is the COOLEST[/CENTER][/SIZE][SIZE="2"][CENTER]Starring_Emma is the COOLEST[/CENTER][/SIZE][SIZE="3"][CENTER]Starring_Emma is the COOLEST[/CENTER][/SIZE] [SIZE="4"][CENTER]Starring_Emma is the COOLEST[/CENTER][/SIZE] [/COLOR]

lumberjim;612103 wrote:

ban your face

That hurt Jim. *sniff*

It would be nice to be able to find out who "she" really is. If she is who she says she is, I'm not for banning, I'd rather be a decent influence. She would have to stick around for that to happen. We would have to be the adults in this one. If she is not who she says she is, then banning is definitely in order.

Ah Flint, we've been waiting.

Radar;612117 wrote:

That hurt Jim. *sniff*

I'm sorry....

it hurt me more than it hurt you....

but you're doing it wrong. Coventry?

What is coventry?

There's another Emma here?

Pico and ME;612130 wrote:

What is coventry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Send_to_Coventry

I went to Coventry once. For a day trip.

I vote we educate her instead.

If I came into the Cellar now as myself at her age, you'd ban me too. But I turned out all right. Kids need mentors. But if the egregarious trolling continues, perhaps some milder discipline is called for, perhaps muting for a week while the mods train her to be a good little poster?

Bah. That's extremely reasonable. I probably shouldn't be voting or expressing an opinion just now, as I'm in a foul mood.

want some chicken?

I think a user title like Radar had when he asked who Bri was would be funny....

BrianR;612143 wrote:

I vote we educate her instead.

If I came into the Cellar now as myself at her age, you'd ban me too. But I turned out all right. Kids need mentors. But if the egregarious trolling continues, perhaps some milder discipline is called for, perhaps muting for a week while the mods train her to be a good little poster?

Jeez...come on. She does not want to be a good little poster.

@ Monnie:remind me?

If not, well, we've dealt with THAT kind before...

Didn't The ShitHammer come along with some of the old users somewhere?

Aye. Ban.
Inappropriate images from a minor or a cop, no winners here.

lumberjim;612138 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Send_to_Coventry

Thanks Jim, I was wonderin meself. And I vote for it!

I vote to ban her. I'm running out of cunt comments and I need them for the Palin threads.

Sheldonrs;612209 wrote:

I vote to ban her. I'm running out of cunt comments and I need them for the Palin threads.

*grins* well, you've got to call 'em like you see 'em.

lol

Didn't I already post here? I'm starting to get confused. Anyway, ban. She's on a quest to get banned anyway, so why not give her what she wants? Then she'll be free to irritate a whole new board.

Maybe I am sadistic, but banning is in a way a reward for her attention seeking, so I'd rather we all just ignored her. Or we could set the dogs on her.

She is tiresome, I expect banning will be necessary sooner or later.

I see a few references to inappropriate images. I haven't gone looking for them, but that would count as using the cellar to break the law.

regular.joe;612118 wrote:

It would be nice to be able to find out who "she" really is. If she is who she says she is, I'm not for banning, I'd rather be a decent influence. She would have to stick around for that to happen. We would have to be the adults in this one. If she is not who she says she is, then banning is definitely in order.

She's real, joe. Pretty much everything she's posted is true, as far as I can tell, except the Baltimore location.
I'm not for banning. I've been entertained by the reaction being almost exactly what I imagined, when I checked her out before approving her posts.
I am surprised, however, at some peoples inability to just ignore her. Guess it's been too quiet around here. :haha:

totally

BrianR;612143 wrote:

I vote we educate her instead.

If I came into the Cellar now as myself at her age, you'd ban me too. But I turned out all right. Kids need mentors. But if the egregarious trolling continues, perhaps some milder discipline is called for, perhaps muting for a week while the mods train her to be a good little poster?

Are you a conservative? Because I fined that liberals make for bad educators. There always stoned and thinking about gay sex.

Pico and ME;612149 wrote:

Jeez...come on. She does not want to be a good little poster.

I'm already an awesome little poster... why would I want to just be a "good" little poster.

Griff;612155 wrote:

Aye. Ban.
Inappropriate images from a minor or a cop, no winners here.

I never posted any inappropriate images... Bikini tops are not inappropriate! If they were public swimming pools and beaches would all be shut down.

When my hubby was about ten or so, his mother had a nightmare about those troll dolls. When she woke up, she said they were evil and went through the house looking for them, went through the kids' toy box and their rooms and threw them all in the trash. She passed away a few years ago, but I remember hubby and his sister mentioning this to her once. Her eyes got all fierce and she just about screamed at them I DON'T LIKE THOSE TROLLS, THEY'RE EVIL. Must have been one hell of a nightmare.

Starring_Emma;612382 wrote:

Are you a conservative? Because I fined that liberals make for bad educators. There always stoned and thinking about gay sex.

Should Emma be fined for that?

I found Emma's Dad's profile, btw, He's not quite as important as she makes out (big surprise)

btw isn't 12 out of 20 voters a somewhat bigger majority than the last repub pres was elected with? looks like she's got it made...

ZenGum;612329 wrote:

Maybe I am sadistic, but banning is in a way a reward for her attention seeking, so I'd rather we all just ignored her. Or we could set the dogs on her.

She is tiresome, I expect banning will be necessary sooner or later.

I see a few references to inappropriate images. I haven't gone looking for them, but that would count as using the cellar to break the law.

I'm a moral Christian conservative and moral Christian conservatives don't have inappropriate images of them selves.

YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO BY LYING LIBERALS!
[SIZE="1"]They're probably on drugs and thinking about sex with small farm animals too! Because that's what liberals do.[/SIZE]

Juniper;612392 wrote:

When my hubby was about ten or so, his mother had a nightmare about those troll dolls. When she woke up, she said they were evil and went through the house looking for them, went through the kids' toy box and their rooms and threw them all in the trash. She passed away a few years ago, but I remember hubby and his sister mentioning this to her once. Her eyes got all fierce and she just about screamed at them I DON'T LIKE THOSE TROLLS, THEY'RE EVIL. Must have been one hell of a nightmare.

She must have missed the Radar one by accident...

monster;612393 wrote:

Should Emma be fined for that?

I found Emma's Dad's profile, btw, He's not quite as important as she makes out (big surprise)

VERY interesting. :eyebrow:

Ban the twit.

Re you calling Emma's dad a twit?

xoxoxoBruce;612373 wrote:

except the Baltimore location.

[CENTER][SIZE="5"]START GOOGLING[/SIZE]





[/CENTER]

lumberjim;612138 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Send_to_Coventry

Actually, there is a more specific use that UT can instigate.
I'm not going to say any more, because I think it's a reasonable semi-secret defence mechanism.

UT thinks it's a mind-fuck and won't play though.
Pansy vegemite-eating liberal.

Starring_Emma;612441 wrote:

START GOOGLING

You have yet to post from Baltimore... nice try.

Starring_Emma;612401 wrote:

I'm a moral Christian conservative and moral Christian conservatives don't have inappropriate images of them selves.

YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO BY LYING LIBERALS!
[SIZE="1"]They're probably on drugs and thinking about sex with small farm animals too! Because that's what liberals do.[/SIZE]

I'm thinking about becoming an immoral Christian conservative, then I'd be part of the majority.

regular.joe;612572 wrote:

I'm thinking about becoming an immoral Christian conservative, then I'd be part of the majority.

There is a how to book.

regular.joe doesn't believe in ROUS's? Is that like not believing in DRG's?

Starring_Emma;612382 wrote:

Are you a conservative? Because I fined that liberals make for bad educators. There always stoned and thinking about gay sex.

I do not take illegal drugs, not even once to try them. Ask anyone. And you can learn something from ANYONE if you pay enough attention.

My politics are not what should concern you, young lady. This Grammar Police Badge however... I'm going to write you a warning this time.

Starring_Emma;612385 wrote:

I'm already an awesome little poster... why would I want to just be a "good" little poster.

That is a matter of opinion. To the rest of this community, you have practically flooded us with new posts in a very short time, without giving us enough time to get to know you and adjust to your...ebullient... personality.

In our experience, young people such as yourself do not last very long by your very nature. You have gone by many names. Weems. Christmas modemer. ETC.

Some of you have stayed long enough to blend in, others have not. A few have had to be forcibly removed. One or two are still invoked when appropriate, usually for the laughs.

So, your first lesson: Approach any group of us as you would a clique of girls at your school. Dress like us, speak like us, get to know us before you interrupt our conversations or make comments about our boyfriends "read: politics/sexuality/<insert comment here>" Or else risk similar consequences, being ignored, avoided or even expelled.

Know this: The person(s) to whom you are speaking in any situation has (have) been here longer than you and, for better or worse, been accepted. Radar is not everyone's favorite person here, but he's been a known quantity for some time and has established himself. Lumberjim can rankle anyone, anytime. But we know him, he's been met in person by more than one of us, myself included. And he, too, has established himself.

My advice to you, Emma, is to be truthful with us. We have resources that you do not yet understand. We can track you anywhere in the world. The chances are, one of us has been to the places you describe and will be able to tell if you are lying. We have a finely-tuned ability to smell out dishonesty. A relationship based in dishonesty is not going to last. Just be yourself, and a little quieter. Go for quality over quantity in your posts. And pay more attention in English class! All we see is your writing and it tells us a LOT about who you are.

There are a few clues in writing that communicate volumes to us in our little electronic world. Capital lettering, when used properly, can indicate emphasis, or a strident tone of voice. Run-on sentences, text-speak, immature grammar, these all indicate youth and, usually, someone who will not last long enough to get to know, and thus are ignored.

Baiting established users is poor behaviour that is rarely tolerated. Leave that for later, when you've gotten to know how it's done. Flame wars are definitely not tolerated here.

Most new entrants throw one or possibly two pebbles into our figurative pond as an introduction. We have threads for this purpose. Feel free to resurrect one and introduce yourself in the usual way. Read a few to see how it's done. You have thrown a handful of stones into our little pond and we need a chance to assimilate you in our own way. Be patient, young grasshopper. I know it goes against your philosophy, but let us judge your worthiness to join our group. We judge not on looks but on character, content and suitability.

The average age here is far higher than your own. There are many college degrees represented here as well as far more life experience than you have seen. You are still young, yet are trying to insinuate yourself into a mostly adult group. You can yet become a conforming nonconformist like the rest of us, or act the spoiled, petulant child and risk being shunned. To quote Rush Limbaugh, "Words mean things." More so here than most other forums, which is why we are here instead of there.

Now, why are YOU here? To join? Entertain? Or to annoy, interrupt and destroy our harmony?

Think about your answer and let us know when you are ready to decide. There is no time limit. Begin!

Brian

Sundae Girl;612545 wrote:

Actually, there is a more specific use that UT can instigate.
I'm not going to say any more, because I think it's a reasonable semi-secret defence mechanism.

UT thinks it's a mind-fuck and won't play though.
Pansy vegemite-eating liberal.

i actually agree with him..... and it's better if it's done manually. that way, the pot still gets stirred....which this place needs from time to time...... but it's not all discussions about how this newbie ruining the signal to noise ratio.

plus it's bound to start some collateral feuding....which we all just love. i mean look...the drama even brought ali out of hiding...shocked i am, shocked.

xoxoxoBruce;612550 wrote:

You have yet to post from Baltimore... nice try.

But, I'm not in Baltimore even though I am from Baltimore!

In America we get to travel freely!

BrianR;612578 wrote:

[COLOR="Red"]Now, why are YOU here?[/COLOR] To join? Entertain? Or to annoy, interrupt and destroy our harmony?

Think about your answer and let us know when you are ready to decide. There is no time limit. Begin!

Brian

[CENTER][SIZE="6"][COLOR="PaleGreen"]I'm[/COLOR] [COLOR="Blue"]here[/COLOR] [COLOR="DarkOrange"]to[/COLOR] [COLOR="DarkOrchid"]help[/COLOR] [COLOR="Red"]![/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE="4"]You should have noted my awesomeness by now![/SIZE][/CENTER]

Good try Brian.
I'll cut n paste next time we get a feisty youngen rather than a shit-stirrer.

Good point LJ.
And it is fun of course.
And Ali back is a bonus.
I just want UT to be like Godzilla in Tokyo every now and then.

[CENTER][SIZE="4"]This guy wants me to be the mother of his children![/SIZE]
at least he knows a good potential mother when he sees one!

http://www.theofftopic.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7813&p=102306#p102306[/CENTER]

I think even most of those people on that forum just like the majority here agree that you are a "mother" just not the kind that has children. :eyebrow:

Nirvana;612611 wrote:

I think even most of those people on that forum just like the majority here agree that you are a "mother" just not the kind that has children. :eyebrow:

You mean like Mother Teresa?

Starring_Emma;612591 wrote:

[CENTER][SIZE="6"][COLOR="PaleGreen"]I'm[/COLOR] [COLOR="Blue"]here[/COLOR] [COLOR="DarkOrange"]to[/COLOR] [COLOR="DarkOrchid"]help[/COLOR] [COLOR="Red"]![/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE="4"]You should have noted my awesomeness by now![/SIZE][/CENTER]

Sorry, I must have missed your "awesomeness". It was masked by MY surgically enlarged ego.

Sundae Girl;612600 wrote:

Good try Brian.
I'll cut n paste next time we get a feisty young'un rather than a shit-stirrer.

I always try my best. I have more lessons in my curriculum, trust me. I'm not convinced Emma is a shit-stirrer or a troll. Yet. But I've been wrong before...

BrianR;612621 wrote:

Sorry, I must have missed your "awesomeness". It was masked by MY surgically enlarged ego.

That's OK you sound smarter then most of the people here... This place needs more people like us around.

Starring_Emma;612617 wrote:

You mean like Mother Teresa?

But of course! :rolleyes: [/sarcasm]

I am amused by the number of people who are unexpectedly finding themselves agreeing with radar.

ok who's turn is it to feed the troll? I am off to feed on Turkey and fixin's
kbaithx!

wolf;612635 wrote:

I am amused by the number of people who are unexpectedly finding themselves agreeing with radar.

I think Radar voted 12 times... liberals are very well known for doing that.

wolf;612635 wrote:

I am amused by the number of people who are unexpectedly finding themselves agreeing with radar.

They're just confused. They figured he would be taking a Libertarian position, i.e. walking the walk.

Nirvana;612636 wrote:

ok who's turn is it to feed the troll? I am off to feed on Turkey and fixin's
kbaithx!

Why don't we all just not feed Radar instead and hope that he goes away? People like Radar who post on the internet just to get attention need to be kicked in their little bean bags!

Us?

There is no spoon...

wolf;612635 wrote:

I am amused by the number of people who are unexpectedly finding themselves agreeing with radar.

My thoughts exactly. :eek: Especially with all the insults in the initial post.

As far as I knew you had to break the rules to get banned. If you believe she is a troll then just do it. All the insults are not needed.


I don't care one way or the other.

I just did some research. Nevermind. She should be banned. Not for the reasons that Radar stated....

lumberjim;612587 wrote:

...the drama even brought ali out of hiding...shocked i am, shocked.

I've been posting because I thought you were on holidays and wouldn't be around.

Nice to see you still notice when I come and go.

Cicero;612668 wrote:

I just did some research. Nevermind. She should be banned. Not for the reasons that Radar stated....

ffs she is banned already. end thread.

Excuse me, I didn't get the fucking memo in time. ffs

Oh well, I tried.

Many of us did, brian, me included. She just isn't ready yet.

Cic, ead.

oh thank god.

BrianR;612578 wrote:

Flame wars are definitely not tolerated here.

Brian, I think that is inaccurate.

I sampled a couple pages of theofftopic.com -- nobody there was posting anything very intelligent, and I figured its membership for subadults. And that was the posters who weren't under ban. Bored, I closed the tab.

Day late, dollar short...sorry for the late input. I read through her posts over the last several days. She has been posting under an alias. I am sure of it. She is not Starring Emma. She is Starring Esther. I know...I saw her on a promo.

The Wife saw that movie.
Down at the library.
Said it was creepy as hell.

And Emma wasn't???

I didn't pay that much attention to Emma.
After her second inane posting, I put her on 'Ignore'.
It seems I missed quite a lot.
Oh well.

Well, Crimson, you missed Radar being a gratuitous asshole to her, just for being an avowed Christian. Fuckin' jerk Dem-voting bitch Radar. But then, the Christian God would be greater than Radar, and Ra-tard thinks that's apostasy, he knowing no greater god than himself. So he went at belittling her -- first. Not a last resort: first. Were I UT, I'd've banned the man for at least a 96.

I think Emma was Rush Limbaugh's sexual fantasies gone horribly, horribly wrong.

Urbane Guerrilla;616025 wrote:

Well, Crimson, you missed Radar being a gratuitous asshole to her, just for being an avowed Christian. Fuckin' jerk Dem-voting bitch Radar. But then, the Christian God would be greater than Radar, and Ra-tard thinks that's apostasy, he knowing no greater god than himself. So he went at belittling her -- first. Not a last resort: first. Were I UT, I'd've banned the man for at least a 96.

My aptly putting her in her place, as I do so often with you, had nothing to do with her being a Christian, and everything to do with her, like you, being an arrogant, rude, witless, asshole who knows nothing but runs her mouth off constantly and accusing those who aren't Christians of being immoral.

It could be worse, she could have dishonestly claimed she was a libertarian when she's a flaming neocon who doesn't know the meaning of the word and accused others of having her own psychological disorders....like you.

Urbane Guerrilla;616025 wrote:

Well, Crimson, you missed Radar being a gratuitous asshole to her, just for being an avowed Christian. Fuckin' jerk Dem-voting bitch Radar. But then, the Christian God would be greater than Radar, and Ra-tard thinks that's apostasy, he knowing no greater god than himself. So he went at belittling her -- first. Not a last resort: first. Were I UT, I'd've banned the man for at least a 96.

hey UG, did you really think that or were you just shooting fish in a barrel with radar?
'Cause he pretty much said what many of us where thinking. And frankly, I don't think that child had a Christian bone in her body. monster's Recipe for an Emmena: 2 parts teenager, 3 parts troll, 4 parts brainwashed monied redneck and a generous 6 parts attention whore.

LOL @ Emmena

It could be worse, she could have dishonestly claimed she was a libertarian when she's a flaming neocon who doesn't know the meaning of the word and accused others of having her own psychological disorders

Err, IIRC, she did.

ETA: why are we picking over the bones of this carcass? Are we so bored? If so, should we invite her back? She did give us something to chat about.

nah, it's just the wannabes finally opening the mystery takeout boxes the night before trash day.....

Don't worry, her dupe accounts keep moderators at work

....and it's coming up to mod voting time....


hmmmmmmm....


;)

Undertoad;616076 wrote:

Don't worry, her dupe accounts keep moderators at work

When does her temp ban expire? Sounds like she may have trouble "keeping it real" but we've housebroken trolls before.

01-26-2010, 02:00 PM. But I expect the return to be short lived, as the child is fucked up, and I doubt we can help... but, I was wrong once back it '54. ;)

I doubt there will be a return.
She has a scorched earth policy, but is unlikely to go back and check for an oasis two months after the initial attack.

Radar;616063 wrote:

LOL @ Emmena

Instant classic!

I dunno. She just came back as "severed penis" and promptly got kicked out again. I think that she is either going to grow up to be a high priced call girl and/or the 7th unknown victim of a serial killer.

I had considered the idea of having a thread for counselling for Emma, where she can post whatever she wants, and those who care can try to engage with her and see if we can help her sort herself out.

I decided against this. She has *serious* issues and needs serious, professional counselling (or psychotherapy). We are not qualified to take this job on, and can't guarrantee the reliability and steadiness of support she needs.

Emma, if you read this, speak to your school teacher or school counsellor about getting some regular sessions where you can talk about whatever is on your mind. Best of luck to you.

SamIam;616252 wrote:

I dunno. She just came back as "severed penis" and promptly got kicked out again. I think that she is either going to grow up to be a high priced call girl and/or the 7th unknown victim of a serial killer.

Do we get to vote on that one?

Yznhymr;616251 wrote:

Instant classic!

Yo! I'm here.

Radar;616056 wrote:

My aptly putting her in her place, as I do so often with you, had nothing to do with her being a Christian, and everything to do with her, like you, being an arrogant, rude, witless, asshole who knows nothing but runs her mouth off constantly and accusing those who aren't Christians of being immoral.

It could be worse, she could have dishonestly claimed she was a libertarian when she's a flaming neocon who doesn't know the meaning of the word and accused others of having her own psychological disorders....like you.

You, amigo, are one lying sack of shit. First, you were not apt, you were abusive. You are by nature a belittler, not a freer. You chewed her ass for having religion, you son of a three-legged bitch. You have no class and you are the chiefest rude and witless asshole to disgrace my Cellar. Yes, insofar as these things are moral questions, you are intensely and deliberately immoral, which makes you a sack of shit -- by choice.

The one way I'm "rude" is that I am with-it enough to disagree with you. That's not rude. It is good sense. The ability to call a spade a spade, and tell a spade from a rake, is by no means remarkable either.

As a libertarian, I voted against Obama, and I was right from a libertarian view to do so, inasmuch as Democratic policy has been about as anti-libertarian as any large group of Americans is going to get. You'd have to go to small groups like the neo-Nazis and CPUSA to go more antilibertarian, and then it's just a matter of degree. Now you, OTOH, confused libertarianism with Radar worship -- something no sane, well-advised being does or will ever do. You shouldn't even be worshiping yourself, though I doubt I could stop you making that narcissistically disordered display. Your take on libertarianism has been unsatisfactory since first I knew you, and apparently you were and are the reason an older Cellar Dwellar remarked to me that it seemed to him Libertarians were mostly jerks.

Your entire body of postings gives evidence of a narcissistic personality disorder and your penchant for abusing people suggests some flavor of autism as well. You literally don't know any better. These are your qualities. Asberger's? Maybe. At any event, you behave like you can't even spell "psychological projection," which makes you not merely an SOB, but quite the stupid one as well. Remember, with you the midbrain always trumps the forebrain, and it has done so here once again -- your emotional makeup forbids ratiocination. No prospect of any improvement, either. Radar is a defective being.

Neocons actually fight tyrants -- naturally enough that would mean the neocons would in time come after your hide. Bend over and take it like the man you hardly know how to be. Libertarianism means and implements liberty, whereas tyrants don't. Naturally we must not only prepare for conflict with tyrants, we must win it too. Libertarianism is fundamentally a conservative philosophy, as libs and cons both reckon smaller government is better government. The only reason you're interested in that is because then you can be more grandiose than the State, if things were carried far enough. Conservatives may know their own worth very well, but as a rule, they are not self-aggrandizers. Certain televangelists do break that rule, true enough. But then there are all the rest of the conservatives.

You chewed her ass for having religion

Oh please, she has no religion. She squawks about it, and may even go through the motions of ceremony, but she's about as religious as a lunchbox. :rolleyes:

I think the pot is calling the kettle black. Given UG's supposedly high intellect, one would think that he could come up with more pithy terms than "lying sack of shit" among others.

Also, UG keeps going on and on about the atheist Democrats. I have no idea where he gets his information, but he scarcely comes off as a choir boy, himself.

Finally, I am amazed at your support of "libs" and "cons" when you are, in fact, a monacharist.

wrote:

Contrary to the common historical view, Kuehnelt-Leddihn asserted that Nazism (National Socialism) was a leftist, democratic movement ultimately rooted in the French Revolution that unleashed forces of egalitarianism, identitarianism, materialism and centralization. He essentially argued that Nazism, fascism, radical-liberalism and communism were essentially democratic movements, based upon inciting the masses to revolution and intent upon destroying the old forms of society. Furthermore, Kuehnelt-Leddihn claimed that all democracy is basically totalitarian and that all democracies eventually degenerate into dictatorships

In Liberty or Equality, his magnum opus, Kuehnelt-Leddihn contrasted monarchy with democracy and presented his arguments for the superiority of monarchy: diversity is upheld better in monarchical countries than in democracies, monarchism is not based on party rule, and it "fits organically into the ecclesiastic and familistic pattern of Christian society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_von_Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Bruce told me to read UT and Bruce was right. The man's a riot.

Oh, and for the record, I'm NOT defending Radar. Radar can get quite nasty without my help.

ZenGum;616255 wrote:

Emma, if you read this, speak to your school teacher or school counsellor about getting some regular sessions where you can talk about whatever is on your mind. Best of luck to you.

She's home schooled. And a bad advertisment for it I must say, given her lack of respect for anyone or anything.

Probably home schooled, because she's been thrown out of school. :rolleyes:

they must have seen some of the pics she posted.

Radar;612078 wrote:

Emma Walker is the most recent childish, ignorant, poorly educated, ugly, nasty, disgusting, little troll to disturb the flow of things in the Cellar. She has very quickly proven that she knows nothing, thinks she knows everything, and will annoy and alienate every person on the board.

Ah. That's why she was banned. She might be accepted over at TrollKingdom.

SamIam;616359 wrote:

I think the pot is calling the kettle black. Given UG's supposedly high intellect, one would think that he could come up with more pithy terms than "lying sack of shit" among others.

And I did. Review the same post for "son of a threelegged bitch" as well. Other remarks anent Radar's character and intellect may be found elsewhere, of a non-choirboy tone. Naval service can among other things make you eloquent.

SamIam;616359 wrote:

Also, UG keeps going on and on about the atheist Democrats. I have no idea where he gets his information, but he scarcely comes off as a choir boy, himself.

I don't recall linking those two terms anywhere in my writing. My problem with the Democrats as presently constituted and led is they're too socialist and much too statist, and unable to fight undemocratic enemies. While these are three strikes, none of these is necessarily atheist, and I really don't beat up on atheists much, though I do regard them as unfortunate and am not shy about saying so. "Progressive" is something chiefly progressive of enlarged state power, and too much power centering in the State is bad for humanity. Tends to keep humans subadult, and that can't be good.

When you come up with stuff like that, Sam, should I perhaps start questioning your reading comprehension? You never seem to get beyond finding what you expect to see there, and I keep seeing your expectations getting out of line.

SamIam;616359 wrote:

Finally, I am amazed at your support of "libs" and "cons" when you are, in fact, a monacharist.[sic]

I presume you meant "monarchist," which I know you've spelt better in the past. Copyedit, m'boy, copyedit -- you do have an hour or two's window. Again, I question your comprehension of what I write. Erik von Kühnelt-Leddihn was an unabashed monarchist, and I've said so -- about Erik. My ideas of how to run a real-world nation run much closer to republics, and democratic ones. Standard-issue American, really. English conservatives tend to monarchism; American conservatives to republicanism -- something that in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century England was regarded as a dangerous radicalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_von_Kuehnelt-Leddihn

SamIam;616359 wrote:

Bruce told me to read UT and Bruce was right. The man's a riot.

Oh, and for the record, I'm NOT defending Radar. Radar can get quite nasty without my help.

I agree, and think it shows sense on your part. I like when you do that.

EvKL's case that fascism and communism fundamentally confound "left" and "right" as popularly understood was unusual, all right, and striking. But he made the case very well in Leftism Revisited. I found it persuasive; I would not have agreed with the idea before he laid forth the argument.

I feel alienated and somewhat annoyed that I have not been alienated and annoyed by this "Emma".

SamIam;616359 wrote:

Finally, I am amazed at your support of "libs" and "cons" when you are, in fact, a monacharist.

Urbane Guerrilla;617546 wrote:

I presume you meant "monarchist," which I know you've spelt better in the past.

Actually I think he meant "muncharist". It's some kind of lesbian term from what I remember.

This tread needs less Hobbs and more Kant

What about Calvin?

He grew up

Oh dammit, internet, stop defiling my childhood!

Oh, goddammit. I didn't realize until I read through it again... that's supposed to be Susie Derkins.

Goddammit.

Hobbs always approved of smooching.

toranokaze;618468 wrote:

This tread needs less Hobbs and more Kant

[COLOR=Black]Well that's all well and good, but you need to remember that
[/COLOR][SIZE=2][COLOR=Black][COLOR=black]Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shanty was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. [/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Funny ad hoc CG

toranokaze;618468 wrote:

This tread needs less Hobbs and more Kant

Man and Superman, solitary, nasty, brutish, and short?

ZenGum;618509 wrote:

Oh dammit, internet, stop defiling my childhood!

The site she got that from fucks [with] everybody's childhood. It may be the largest repository of Pokémon pr0nz anywhere.

It's also the only place I've ever seen porn of Elfquest and Girl Genius.

Don't think I've seen any Alley Oop...

What site?

Rule 34. You can lose most of the advertisements with properly setting your popup blocker if you like.

It is a tag-searchable database-type site. Doesn't tag activity, just characters, series or show they appear in, or artist if known. Search "Calvin_and_Hobbes" using underscores, and you'll get however many pages of thumbnails they've got on them. The site is sometimes slow: it puts a real strain on servers, being so large.

Urbane Guerrilla;618997 wrote:

Man and Superman, solitary, nasty, brutish, and short?

CouchNietzschecough.

ZenGum;619010 wrote:

CouchNietzschecough.

wow. Nietzsche has a bad cough!

and it was thomas hobbes who said that. don't go blaming nietzsche for everything just because god is dead!

I find most dead people do.

Rule 34. You can lose most of the advertisements with properly setting your popup blocker if you like.

Golly, I noticed on the sidebar there's a built like a brick shithouse, 19 year old girl, living only a couple of miles from me. She wants sex so badly she posted her naked picture on the web. How could you not love a girl that honest and forthcoming. :lol2:

Brianna;619036 wrote:

wow. Nietzsche has a bad cough!

and it was thomas hobbes who said that. don't go blaming nietzsche for everything just because god is dead!

The solitary, nasty, brutish and short was Hobbes.

Man and Superman was Nietzsche, rather than Kant.

On reflection, it should have been:

SneezeNietzschesneeze.

More poetic.

I prefer sneezeSneechessneeze with stars upon thars.

Crimson Ghost;618568 wrote:

[COLOR=Black]Well that's all well and good, but you need to remember that
[/COLOR][SIZE=2][COLOR=Black][COLOR=black]Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shanty was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. [/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Monty Python!:D

Haggis.

ZenGum;619200 wrote:

The solitary, nasty, brutish and short was Hobbes.

Man and Superman was Nietzsche, rather than Kant.

Right, thanks.

Maybe this is a better one to be bumped.

bump

Is this thread about the Emma that everyone keeps talking about?

Three guesses and the first two don' count.

SamIam;623649 wrote:

Three guesses and the first two don' count.

Who were you talking to?