The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Cellar Meta (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SITE (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=4657)

glatt 01-21-2012 04:12 PM

Just do a Google search in the Cellar domain.

"meanwhile in" site:cellar.org

BigV 02-10-2012 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae (Post 784230)
I see them, I just can't add to their random appeal. It makes my year if I make the Hall of Fame!

Careful what you wish for...

monster 02-20-2012 11:18 AM

Who's sock puppet is Nerdina? Gotta be someone who declared they wouldn't ever participate in the deadpool thread because it was wrong ...then got sucked in...... :lol:

sexobon 03-12-2012 08:06 PM

Has a virtual exorcism ever been performed in the Cellar? I'm asking just in case we have to have one for JBKlyde. I'm wondering if strange sounds will be coming from our speakers, if printers will be spitting ink, and if monitors will spin 360 degrees around. Will our computers levitate? Where does one get virtual holy water? Do moderators risk becoming possessed? So many questions; yet, so few answers. About the only thing I'm reasonably certain of is that it would have to be done in a NSFW thread. Thanks in advance.

wolf 03-12-2012 08:17 PM

I'm fully qualified. Be just and fear not.

BigV 04-10-2012 06:41 PM

Is there a place where all the optional parameters for tags are listed? I have forgotten and can not find the parameter for starting an embedded youtube video to start at a given time in seconds. I know there are lots of other parameters, I just don't know what they are or where to look.

TIA

Ibby 04-22-2012 04:21 PM

Is UncaDollas really banned or is that just his user title?
..if not...should he be? Is he a real poster posting exclusively youtube videos in an effort to contribute, or...?

glatt 04-22-2012 04:46 PM

This morning, when I came to the Cellar, there were 20 unread threads where he was the last poster, and his posts were all videos. I was under the impression from previous posts by him that he posts here mainly to drive traffic to his YouTube site. At that moment, I found him to be intolerably annoying. So I banned him.

I might not make the same decision now. And if the other mods disagree with me, I would be open to them unbanning him.

Ibby 04-22-2012 04:52 PM

Thats what I figured happened. Cheers.

infinite monkey 04-22-2012 04:53 PM

I logged in in the wee hours of the morning and saw the same thing. He has always just posted videos, usually unrelated. Someone has mentioned it to him before. Stick to your guns, it was the right move. If he had ever posted anything else...anything. Ffs, is this really debateable?

DanaC 04-22-2012 05:09 PM

From December last year:


Quote:

No, I'm not making any money on my videos. I dont believe I will ever make money with my videos, its just a hobby. I wouldn't sell advertising on youtube because I don't think some one would sit through an ad to watch them. I have posted several times over the last 3 years and there are many of them that not video posts. I apologize that I posted this particular video 3 times. They seemed like appropriate threads for the video. I found this video to be funny and thought I'd share it, maybe a little too over zealously. I enjoy message boards generally and I like this one specifically. I enjoy the other posters senses of humor and frequently read their posts. One of the reasons I may have gotten a little crazy with the video posts is that the Cellar has a particular way to successfully post a video that I actually learned recently and probably was trying to show off.
As far as it not being funny, I understand my humor isn't the same as every one else. If I bother to explain why I think it is funny, it loses all humor anyway, so I wont bother. Even though some of you want me banned at this point, I do appreciate that you looked at my posts and that some of you watched the video. Thank you.
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=780246&postcount=4334

Quote:

Jeeze, doing some damage control on my rep here, but you guys are right, I deserve it. I have posted many times over the past few years and I hope occasionally they were amusing. I actually read other peoples more than I post myself. If you guys get me banned, I wont be able to read all your witty remarks and I'll never be funny.

Give me one more chance, I'll take it easy on the video posts for awhile.
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=780250&postcount=13



I think he just likes posting funny or interesting vids. That's his bag.

Admittedly I did find this morning's flurry quite annoying, but they were all chosen for specific threads, they weren't the same vid spamming the board.

Personally I am not in favour of him being banned. he isn;t causing anyone any harm. At worst some of his vids miss the mark and are just weird instead of funny. Anyone here long enough to find them intolerably irritating has also been here long enough to know not to play an UncaDollas video.

Just my tuppennorth. Though, have to say this morning I was mildly annoyed and the thought "ffs, ban this twat already" did float briefly through my mind. But it ain't malicious and it ain't usually attention whoring. There are one or two other people who contribute in similar but less irritating ways (such as the strange and wonderful images John posts). At least he isn't private messaging people, starting feuds and generally shitting all over the carpet.

infinite monkey 04-22-2012 06:06 PM

He can still read and learn from our incredible wit, even from Banland. ;)

In my opinion, he did 'damage control' for his product, which is videos from his site. Yes, he stopped posting vids for a while, but it isn't like he was conversing in other ways during that time. He obviously can communicate, judging from the quoted text.

It's like "don't ban me, I won't post about the Incredible Lemony Mop Bucket I'm trying to hock. For a while, anyway."

classicman 04-22-2012 06:22 PM

The banhammer was the right decision.
I support the decision. The only other alternative would be to allow him to post without adding videos or images - if thats possible.

Ibby 04-22-2012 06:23 PM

its not even the implied advertising that bothers me... its that the videos arent a RESPONSE to the threads, its just whatever video is vaguely related to something vaguely alluded to in the thread. its contentless.

Ibby 04-22-2012 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 807905)
Anyone here long enough to find them intolerably irritating has also been here long enough to know not to play an UncaDollas video.

I think that misses the point a little. If the only thing he has to say, everyone who's part of the community knows better than to bother with...

monster 04-22-2012 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram (Post 807916)
its not even the implied advertising that bothers me... its that the videos arent a RESPONSE to the threads, its just whatever video is vaguely related to something vaguely alluded to in the thread. its contentless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram (Post 807917)
I think that misses the point a little. If the only thing he has to say, everyone who's part of the community knows better than to bother with...

These things. It's irritating, it doesn't add to the conversation, and in some cases it detracts from it and even verges on harmful because he doesn't take the time to see how relevant the video is to the topic, or to get to know the community well enough to avoid crapping in the more serious and personal threads.

And what infi said. Last time we called him on it, he said he'd lay off. Then how many in one go? Any verbiage? This is not a video-based site. you might as well say, well we all know not to click on the ads .....but we're all happy that they're not there at all......

ZenGum 04-23-2012 12:43 AM

I'm ambivalent about banning, but for the first time evah I used the ignore feature.

Took me ages to find it, too. :p:

DanaC 04-23-2012 03:05 AM

Good point Monster, hadn't really thought about it like that.

Whilst we're at it, can we please ban the fuck out of JBKlyde? He's gone way too far, I don't want him anywhere near this place.

Ibby 04-23-2012 05:52 AM

It's going to happen, give the mods a minute.

BigV 04-23-2012 07:46 AM

I don't agree that JBKlyde should be banned.

DanaC 04-23-2012 07:54 AM

Seriously? Have you see what he said about going postal and blowing away a gay pride march?

ZenGum 04-23-2012 07:58 AM

I just read the Sexual Imorality thread.
I think his behaviour there is unacceptable hate speech.
But, I think he is obviously mentally ill, and may benefit from the cellar as a stabilising influence.
Perhaps temporary banning might be considered.

ZenGum 04-23-2012 08:08 AM

hehe .. now if he's said he was going to go to a gay parade and blow them all, that would be different.

BigV 04-23-2012 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 808013)
Seriously? Have you see what he said about going postal and blowing away a gay pride march?

Yes.

I stand by my position. What rule has he broken?

I strongly oppose the silencing of voices because I disagree with them. And if you go back and re-read his comments, there's an important "if" that gets forgotten about is postal-ness. Even Ted Nugent who is at least as nutz as JBKlyde didn't have his remarks taken seriously. I think a far stricter standard of literal validity is being applied to this remark than to countless other remarks that are just as outrageous.

It is a bad idea to surround oneself with only pleasant, agreeable opinions. He hasn't broken any of our rules in my opinion and therefore does not deserve to be banned.

DanaC 04-23-2012 08:30 AM

I think it has to be taken in the context of several weeks of rising hostility and nasty comments to and about Ibs regarding sexual orientation.

Maybe Zen's right and a temp ban is appropriate I don;t know. But JBKlyde has spent the last couple of weeks sniping and making anti-gay comments and generally going out of his way to insult and hurt another board member on the grounds of sexuality and gender identity.

Had this been an isolated incident I'd be a little less annoyed.

BigV 04-23-2012 08:43 AM

We have many set pieces of serious conflict. Even mercy earned place in Ibram's signature for the vitriol of his comments made about the same subject, only more personal. There was no call for a ban then, why?

And it takes two to fight. I've been reading and I haven't seen the focused aggression you describe. Even so, that's not grounds for banning. It's a textbook example for ignoring. And it has also been a textbook example of a flamefest. I don't see any offense justifying a ban. If it's /airquote just /airquote "JFC, you are the most offensive person I've ever met." there are more appropriate responses than banning.

DanaC 04-23-2012 08:46 AM

Actually there were calls for a ban with Merc. And Merc took a break and apologised. And understood why what he'd said was offensive.


[eta] as I recall that incident led to Ibram staying away from the Cellar for quite a long time. Even with the other person on ignore, knowing that he is there making nasty homophobic comments is likely to make this place feel a lot less welcoming and safe for those who are already dealing with some quite complex stuff.

That said, yes, I understand that much of this may be a manifestation of his mental illness and as such warrants a more understanding attitude. But, the ramifications of that understanding could well be that other members here feel les welcome and less inclined to be here.

Ibby 04-23-2012 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 808038)
And understood why what he'd said was offensive.

Even if i still do have my problems with merc, so much THIS. without understanding what's so unbelievably poisonous about what he said, there can certainly be no constructive progression.

Even if to Dana this is about his attacks on me and my identity, shit, i couldn't care less about him telling me i'm gonna burn in hell. It's threats of literal violence and hate crimes where I draw the ban-line in this case.

DanaC 04-23-2012 08:59 AM

The thing is though it isn't just you Ibs. There are several people on this board whose particular gender identity or sexual orientation make such issues a matter of personal concern. These people are our friends and I do not think they should be subjected to that kind of shit here/ Not here/ The world is a cold place at times, but this is the Cellar.

I'd feel much the same way if someone were to make comments about how people with disabilities or mental illness should be culled for the health of the nation. is it a viable threat? No. Is it intolerably offensive to anybody with a disability, mental health condition, or relative with either? Yes.

Ibby 04-23-2012 09:06 AM

I dunno - I'm with V that just subjecting people to "that kind of shit" isn't in-and-of-itself bannable. Again, it's the threat of violence where I draw the line.

DanaC 04-23-2012 09:11 AM

"That kind of shit" by which I mean hate-speech against groups of people on the grounds of race, gender or sexual orientation.

Someone makes a dodgy joke about gay cowboys, well the world is harsh, get a helmet. Someone makes comments advocating violence against gays/queers/niggers/towelheads/Jews/etc that is unacceptable and in my view likely to make the Cellar feel like an unwelcoming place.

My point is that it is not to do with how real the threat is. Hate speech isn't defined by how likely the speaker is to carry out his voiced threats. Couching it in hypothetical terms (if I were to go postal I'd...) and calling it a joke does not stop it being hate speech. It's only a 'joke' because of the response it gets. On another forum with different response who knows where that would go.

Hate speech has no place. No fucking place whatsoever on the Cellar.

As I say, maybe Zen's right and a temporay ban is in order. Maybe JBKlyde will respond to that by not voicing such things in here again. I don't know. I just know that either he, or the hate speech has to go.

Sundae 04-23-2012 09:40 AM

Let Unca back.
He behaved in an intolerably irritating manner but he was harmless and at least we know he reads threads. And after all it was one morning. He went on a bit of a spree.

Temp ban JBK. He stepped over the line. I disagree with everything he posts but that's not why I think he needs temp banning. If he comes back and espouses hatred again, ban him. I for one won't miss him.

BigV 04-23-2012 10:35 AM

Being offensive is not ban-worthy.

Here in Washington we have a law, recently upheld, to my dismay, that permits pharmacists to refuse to dispense legal medicine to someone with a legal prescription based on a moral objection. I imagine the pharmacists would say they were offended by, perhaps, the behavior or attitudes of, you know, some people. Here's why I have a problem with that AIRQUOTE standard AIRQUOTE.

One, it's utterly subjective. Even being intolerably annoying is subjective, but it is a more restrictive standard than "offensive". Do we want all offensive speech silenced? Not just ignored. Not fought against. Not refuted. Not argued into self-evident submission. Just forbidden, but just around here. I say no.

Two, that kind of rule cuts both ways, and it's *sharp*. Apparently, JBK finds *your* position offensive. When the shoe's on the other foot, there is no call for you to be kicked out. Why isn't there a call for you to be banned by the same standard "offensiveness" Is that the right response? I say no.

You said in another thread that one mitigating fact about mercy's comments was his contrition; that he "learned" about/from the offensiveness of his remarks. If teaching dwellars to be better people is the laudable, if Sisyphean goal, then banning JBK doesn't further your efforts toward that goal.

***

Dana

Rivers of hateful speech have flowed through the cellar, rivers whose headwaters are still here. I think selective banning is just a different shade of the same stupid prejudice being shown by JBK's homophobic remarks. And we absolutely *DO* make judgments about the ... importance of all kinds of remarks including hateful ones. As a student of language you know well the value of tone and context in all kinds of communication. Maybe I have been inattentive to this "kill kill kill" comments, but a quick search of the cellar returns over 45 thousand instances of "kill". That is many metric fucktons of evidence for banning. Really?

DanaC 04-23-2012 10:57 AM

I think you and I may have a slightly different attitude to the matter of 'free speech' and 'hate speech'.

If someone on this board said: I dunno, sometimes I feel like going out and lynching a nigger - I would want that person banned. Temporarily or permanently. I do not believe anybody has the 'right' to publish something like that on a public forum. What they say to each other in the privacy of their own homes is their own business, but this is a privately owned, publicly accessible forum where words are left permanently on show.

I do, however, take your point about the potential for learning. Which is why I agree that a temporary ban might be fairer.

DanaC 04-23-2012 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 808054)
And we absolutely *DO* make judgments about the ... importance of all kinds of remarks including hateful ones. As a student of language you know well the value of tone and context in all kinds of communication.

Generally speaking there is a fairly fundamental difference in approach between America and Europe when it comes to laws on hate speech. Under American legal codes it is defined in terms of its offensiveness and capacity to cause distress to victims. This places internet communication in particular in less danger of regulation than other media (radio and television). The 'victim' must first go through several steps to access the material, therefore they have effectively sought it out and been offended by it. It hasnt intruded unsought into their life as something floating actross the radio might.

In Europe the baseline for hate speech laws is the impact they have on society more generally that underlies what is considered unacceptable.

Quote:

Black’s Law Dictionary defines hate speech
as “speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of
hatred for some group, such as a particular race, especially in
circumstances where the communication is likely to provoke
violence.” Other sources characterize hate speech as “a form of
expression offensive to women, ethnic and religious groups, and
other discrete minorities.” In many circumstances, hate speech
communicates the message “that distinctions of race [or origin] are
ones of merit, dignity, status, and personhood.” It also injures
career prospects, social mobility, and may even cause mental illness
and psychosomatic disease.

These definitions and descriptions, developed by United States authors, have their focus on victims’ sufferings and reactions and are only partly applicable to Internet speech. First, “communications over the Internet do not appear on computer screens without the user taking a series of affirmative steps,” and in most cases, it is possible to avoid undesirable messages; second, as a rule, neither the speaker nor the addressee is accessible for violence, and in many cases is anonymous or unknown.
Quote:

According to the Additional Protocol to the [European] Convention on Cybercrime, “‘racist and xenophobic material’ means any representation of thought or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence against any individual or group of individuals based on race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin.” Obviously, the focus of this definition is not on a particular victim but on the dissemination of racist attitudes in the society.
From http://law-wss-01.law.fsu.edu/journa.../timofeeva.pdf

Now, in this case I have two immediate and instinctive responses to JBKlyde: a) that's unacceptable, you've hurt a friend, and b) that's unacceptable, that breaches my understanding of what is and is not appropriate / legal in messageboard communication and represents a wider social danger by the dissemination of hate speech.

xoxoxoBruce 04-23-2012 02:06 PM

If you silence them, the FBI/DHS internet filters can't ferret them out before they actually act.

Gravdigr 04-23-2012 03:06 PM

I don't particularly give a damn one way or the other, but...

If Unca gets banned for being Unca, I think a lot of us have to be banned, because some of us have done worse than Unca or JB.

And I said "us", cuz I personally have done worse more than a few times. And some of us have been FAR FAR FAR worse than either JB or Unca, for a much longer span of time.

That said, I'm sure they're is a population of Dwellars who would like to see me go, too.

:2cents:


ETA: I've missed JB's display of 'hate speech'. If someone could/would point me to that, so I could opine for myself, I'd appreciate it. PM if you'd rather.

Gravdigr 04-23-2012 03:11 PM

Also, 'Free Speech' means everybody, even the people you/we disagree with.

Now...if he's hating on fat guys w/ponytails...we're gonna have prollums.

classicman 04-23-2012 04:03 PM

Quote:

It's threats of literal violence and hate crimes where I draw the ban-line in this case.
Agreed.
Quote:

Why isn't there a call for you [Ibs]to be banned
No threat of violence, nor 'hate speech'
Quote:

Perhaps temporary banning might be considered.
Agreed, at a minimum, at least.

BigV 04-23-2012 04:18 PM

Quote:

Quote:

It's threats of literal violence and hate crimes where I draw the ban-line in this case.
Agreed.

Quote:

Why isn't there a call for you [Ibs]to be banned
No threat of violence, nor 'hate speech'
Are you saying the "if I go postal I'm going to a gay pride parade and blow them all away" remark as "threats of literal violence and hate crimes"? I might have missed some others, so help me out please. If it is just this point, then I contend that JBK's statement falls very far short of a threat of literal violence OR a hate crime.

for the second point, I was responding to the clamor over the "offensiveness" of JBK's remarks and trying to illustrate the weakness, difficulty and danger of such a standard as justification for banning. "You offend me, you must be banned."--we don't want to go there.

BigV 04-23-2012 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gravdigr (Post 808106)
snip--

ETA: I've missed JB's display of 'hate speech'. If someone could/would point me to that, so I could opine for myself, I'd appreciate it. PM if you'd rather.

You should look here. If there are others, others will have to point them out to both of us. Of course, JBK has plenty of other "out there" shit, but I haven't seen any that approach "hate speech", no moreso than the regular shitstorm that sometimes comes through.

DanaC 04-23-2012 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 808157)
You should look here. If there are others, others will have to point them out to both of us. Of course, JBK has plenty of other "out there" shit, but I haven't seen any that approach "hate speech", no moreso than the regular shitstorm that sometimes comes through.

As far as I am aware that was the first time it escalated from mere offensive bigotry to hate speech. Which is why this is the first time I have advocated a ban.

Flint 04-23-2012 10:43 PM

"QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SITE" Why the ƒuck hasn't JBKlyde been banned as shit, and erased from the history books? FUCK THIS GUY.

classicman 04-23-2012 10:46 PM

Quote:

Are you saying the "if I go postal I'm going to a gay pride parade and blow them all away" remark as "threats of literal violence and hate crimes"?
Close enough for me. And I stand by my opinion that at least a temporary ban is in order.

Flint 04-23-2012 10:53 PM

I've felt sorry for him, and tried to be understanding and all that, but there is a limit.

Letting someone say the things he has said, with no consequences... that isn't kind. Unacceptable things should not be accepted.

classicman 04-23-2012 11:08 PM

^^^WHS^^^

Gravdigr 04-24-2012 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 808157)
You should look here. If there are others, others will have to point them out to both of us. Of course, JBK has plenty of other "out there" shit, but I haven't seen any that approach "hate speech", no moreso than the regular shitstorm that sometimes comes through.

THAT is where this all came from?


















Ima be over here in the corner.

With my mouth shut.

Cuz, if I say anything that's in my mind right now, yall just might be at my house in the morning. And it has nothing to do with mowing anyone down, gay or otherwise.

Carry on.

Sundae 04-25-2012 08:38 AM

Interesting.

Trilby 04-25-2012 11:07 AM

I would vote on it.

My vote would be to ban him.

infinite monkey 04-25-2012 11:26 AM

I would vote we let the mods we voted for make these kinds of decisions, butthurts aside.

Trilby 04-25-2012 11:44 AM

Good idea. Thats what we pay them for-right? ;)

Nirvana 04-25-2012 02:35 PM

No one cares about my opinion so here goes >

"keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

that being said I won't cry if JBK is banned...

Flint 04-25-2012 02:36 PM

QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SITE:
How do we interpret rule number one? Would a person in "real life" be allowed to call up a talk radio program and announce that they plan to commit acts of mass violence as a religiously-motivated hate crime? Do I really have to ask this question?
Quote:

There are only three RULES of the Cellar.
  1. Do not try to break the law using the Cellar.
...

infinite monkey 04-25-2012 02:52 PM

omg you're all really being pathetic. Peasants with pitchforks.

I could name 3 or 4 assholes I'd like to see banned RF Yesterday but I'm not pounding my desk demanding it.

Get over yourselves. Let the mods do their jobs.

I know I come off as a big JBK sympathizer...but it's this: he HAS tried to contribute. He admits to schizophrenia. He admits to being out of it as far as social convention.

Ban or not? I don't know. He's at least given us more than a bunch of videos with no commentary (oh, but if we go back a few hundred posts OH LOOK he said something HERE) and he hasn't smoothed everything over with "I LOVE to read you clever witty people please please please don't ban me" (and this is PROOF he reads us, really) but he has written poems and shown us his artwork and yes, pissed people off.

Meh. Mountains out of molehills and having to be 'right'. JFC.

And frankly, Ibs is going to need a much thicker skin in the coming years, don't you think? He's not going to be able to 'ban' everyone he's going to run into who says stupid shit.

So many of us espouse 'teaching' and 'learning' and 'understanding' but it seems to only extend to what is PC at the moment.

JBK, apologize for your one dumbass comment. Learn from it.

Can we move on now? Or are we storming the moat?

Flint 04-25-2012 04:36 PM

Irrelevant. Obfuscation.

DanaC 04-25-2012 05:01 PM

He isn't going to learn from it, he seems to have made that abundantly clear. primarily, because he doesn't actually understand what it was about that comment that stepped over the line.

I commented earlier that this came after a string of anti-queer comments. Setting aside the question of what is or isn't hate speech, or of what constitutes censorship, I find nasty homophobic comments intolerably irritating.

It's funny though. Because so often you and I are on different sides of this argument, Infi.

On those occasions when I am the one saying, let's not ban this person they haven't done anything so very wrong, and they seem to have genuine mental health issues, I am accused of being a bleeding heart, self-appointed newbie defender. Yet here we are swapping things arounfd, and now I am a pitchfork-waving peasant who's making a mountain out of a molehill because I advocated a ban.

I don't know quite what you mean by 'what is PC at the moment' but I've always had a fairly consistent position on hatespeech and bigotry.

This wasn't a single stupid comment. It was the culmination of a series of increasingly bigoted comments. Can't recall who said it now, but I agree that this is a time where 'true colours' have been shown. The views that lie behind this latest (and over the line) comment have clearly been there all along.

From what JBK has posted since, he has no real understanding of why this might be a problem.

I no longer advocate a total ban. I think a lot of the points made by you and others, particularly with regard to fairness hold true. Likewise the fact that JBK has been very open about his mental health and this may well be a factor in his interactions.

But I do slightly resent the way objections to this poster have been characterised. It seems to me, if I find myself defending someone, it is because I am weak-willed and feel somehow compelled to place myself in the defender role and take some imagined moral highground....yet if I am the one advocating a ban, it is because I am weak-willed and feel somehow compelled to take the PC road and take some imagined moral high-ground.

What actually may be closer to the truth is that sometimes what someone does seems intolerably irritating to you, but not to me. And other times what someone does is intolerably irritating to me, but not to you.


[eta] Didn't mean that quite as snarky as it reads btw. Yo still mah homegurl.:p

Nirvana 04-25-2012 05:28 PM

Not sure if I meant to come off as PC [maybe not directed at me} I didn't want to come off as insensitive to others feelings and maybe I should have posted I am apathetic.

JBK is like watching a train wreck he is mildly interesting in an analytical way. He is not entertaining me but sometimes you just can't look away. Some people say all kinds of stuff online for "effect" that they would not dare say in public. >shrugs<

Rhianne 04-25-2012 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nirvana (Post 808523)
Some people say all kinds of stuff online for "effect" that they would not dare say in public.

And they have that the wrong way around. Things you say in public are often forgotten pretty quickly. What you post online is there for ever.

DanaC 04-25-2012 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhianne (Post 808526)
And they have that the wrong way around. Things you say in public are often forgotten pretty quickly. What you post online is there for ever.

True dat.

BigV 04-25-2012 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint (Post 808501)
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SITE:
How do we interpret rule number one? Would a person in "real life" be allowed to call up a talk radio program and announce that they plan to commit acts of mass violence as a religiously-motivated hate crime? Do I really have to ask this question?

I find your citing of this rule to be irrelevant.

No law was broken. No attempt at breaking any law was made. The cellar wasn't used for either of these, so invoking this rule doesn't apply.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:37 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.