mantra wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 8:44am:

Cracticus - just ignore some of the comments made by IQ, if they're particularly annoying.  IQ always has to have the last word, even after having lost an argument.

IQ woke up this morning too.."did i ever tell you whakco that you were a dud r......?          He answers " you are!"

This is the reality in IQs world. ::)

BK- you are a f@cking moron

IQ woke up this morning too.."did i ever tell you whakco that you were a dud r......?          He answers " you are!"

http://www.eshirt.co.uk/ProductCart/pc/catalog/bbbbtshblack_802_general.jpg

Queen Elizabeth    3 (4.1%)Our Prime minister    31 (42.4%)The British Prime Minister    3 (4.1%)Nobody-Forgive and Forget    36 (49.3%)

Interesting figures, I wonder how many of you would agree with the japanese apoligising to Australian POWs? I mean WW2 was 60 + years ago, so why should they?

Nobody-Forgive and Forget    36 (49.3%)

Yep

Interesting figures, I wonder how many of you would agree with the japanese apoligising to Australian POWs? I mean WW2 was 60 + years ago, so why should they?

I don't think they should although equating the govt sanctioned removal of aboriginals from destructive environments to POW's is stretching things just a little don't you think?

IQSRLOW wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 10:38am:

Nobody-Forgive and Forget    36 (49.3%) Yep Interesting figures, I wonder how many of you would agree with the japanese apoligising to Australian POWs? I mean WW2 was 60 + years ago, so why should they? I don't think they should although equating the govt sanctioned removal of aboriginals from destructive environments to POW's is stretching things just a little don't you think?

No, the RSL are always belting on about it , in case you forgot the war was government sanctioned as well.

The Japanese obviously aren't as hung up about past issues as the regressive looking ruddites are.

But good luck with that- I'm sure kruddy will get to it right after he is finished trying to please the ignorant masses by vigorously shaking his finger at the Japanese over whaling

mantra wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 8:44am:

Cracticus - just ignore some of the comments made by IQ, if they're particularly annoying.  IQ always has to have the last word, even after having lost an argument.

Yes, I can see that. Well, none of it is to be taken too seriously. It's all just repartee. Some might think I'm encouraging IQ to make himself look foolish for my own amusement; but then again I might be encouraging him to reconsider some of the things he says and maybe learn from his mistakes.

You will always get people trolling by means of their own studied silliness. How about the one who reckons he knows more about hating all the people in the world because I'm a racist? The lack of logic in that beggars belief, and it's not even funny. IQ at least tries to be funny.

IQ, since you seem to want to promote understanding of English, consider the following.

Your words "Being a lefty, I would assume such-and-such"

Mean:

"I am a lefty, therefore I assume such-and-such"

It is a simple matter of English grammar and syntax. Suggestion — print this and take it to school with you on Monday; get your teacher to explain it to you.

Perhaps you should go back to school and ask the teacher to explain context to you but first wash the sand out of your mangina otherwise you will find it hard to concentrate with all that chafing

The thought of a leftard such as ignorant as yourself teaching anyone anything is a joke in itself. The first thought that would come to mind with anyone reading any of your diatribe is 'ignorant blowhard'

The pathetic message that you may be trying to unsuccessfully convey is libel to be lost among the plethora of left wing ignorant blowhards that inhabit political forums.


...and you are a racist

I'd like to say sorry for new members who pop up every now and again with the express purpose of flaming long standing members who actually contribute stuff.  Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.  

I know what they do though and that is be sock puppets.

Thanks DT, but I have been flamed better by others who are a couple of rungs above the evolutionary scale than Stickler here.

Anyone is welcome to put there 0.02c worth in- but somehow I feel I owe him a refund

Acid Monkey wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 10:06am:

merou wrote on Feb 28th, 2008 at 7:19pm: Cracticus wrote on Feb 28th, 2008 at 6:41pm: Ever heard of the Racial Discrimination Act, 1975?   Or the Racial Hatred Act, 1995? So if it's not hatred of a race, or discrimination against a certain race but pointing out the fact that a certain race has, as a majority, alcoholics, drug addicts, large majority in prison, violent etc etc in it's population, could you then just call it the truth? or do you still think that pointing out these facts is racist? Sometimes the truth about a certain race is just fact, expressing these facts does not mean you are racist. Sometimes truth or contructive criticism can be falsely labelled as villification. For example, people offering facts or constructive criticism against Israel are sometimes brushed aside or labelled as "anti-Semitic". This ploy whether intentionally (or otherwise) is employed primarily to stifle debate or to discredit the commentator. Truth is truth and facts are facts. However, generalisation and wholesale villification is discrimination To say that there is a problem with alcoholism in the outback communities primarily among the aborigines is fact. To say that all aborigines are petrol sniffing alcoholics is villification.

"We apologise for giving you law and order which has helped
   prevent you from slaughtering one another and using the
   unfortunate for food purposes."

"We apologise for developing large farms and properties, which
   today feed you people, where before, you had the benefits of
   living off the land and starving during droughts."

Do you consider stuff like this and all the other putrid garbage accompanying it "truth" and "constructive criticism", then? I have already asked others to point out the alleged truth or facts in the aforesaid garbage. And another to point out the "information" he says it contains. So far nothing has been forthcoming. Only irrelevant rants from the keyboard mashers. Since you seem to want to defend it, perhaps you will oblige?

And please stop putting too many Ls in words.

IQSRLOW wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 9:38pm:

Perhaps you should go back to school and ask the teacher to explain context to you but first wash the sand out of your mangina otherwise you will find it hard to concentrate with all that chafing The thought of a leftard such as ignorant as yourself teaching anyone anything is a joke in itself. The first thought that would come to mind with anyone reading any of your diatribe is 'ignorant blowhard' The pathetic message that you may be trying to unsuccessfully convey is libel to be lost among the plethora of left wing ignorant blowhards that inhabit political forums. ...and you are a racist

Sorry about the school quip. I can see you have a PhD in making a fool of yourself.

And please stop putting too many Ls in words.

Just had to add that you're an ignorant leftard spelling nazi as well- oh the shame

Do you consider stuff like this and all the other putrid garbage accompanying it "truth"

If its lies and innuendo that you want to censor, then that would be slippery path to tread from your side of the fence...Mantra would have been banned from the internet along time ago. Or perhaps it's only propaganda from the socialists side that passes your lofty test Adolf?

IQSRLOW wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 10:00pm:

And please stop putting too many Ls in words. Just had to add that you're an ignorant leftard spelling nazi as well- oh the shame

A leftard and a Nazi too? In the same sentence? Wow.

In the ignorance stakes you'll beat me every time, IQlacking. Only thing you'll ever beat me in, though.

Wow...zing  ::)

Try to work on your comebacks- you are starting to bore me

IQSRLOW wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 10:05pm:

Do you consider stuff like this and all the other putrid garbage accompanying it "truth" If its lies and innuendo that you want to censor, then that would be slippery path to tread from your side of the fence...Mantra would have been banned from the internet along time ago. Or perhaps it's only propaganda from the socialists side that passes your lofty test Adolf?

But can you point to any lies Mantra has actually told? Unsubstantiated allegations of such coming from one such as you count for absolutely nothing. And you want people banned from the internet, and I'm the Adolf around here? Some people's idiocy knows no bounds…

And you want people banned from the internet,

*cough* Where have I said that Mr Strawman?

It's not information at all. What information do you imagine it to contain? It's nothing more than a redneck polemic rant designed to instil racial hatred. OzPolitic's dissemination of it is probably illegal.

Ever heard of the Racial Discrimination Act, 1975?   Or the Racial Hatred Act, 1995?

As far as I can see, you are the only one that has threatened other posters with claims that their posts are 'illegal'

It seems that you are the queen of censorship around here- maybe you should complain to your local minister for 'whogivesash!twhatyouthink'

I'm sure he will give you the same reaction as what you are getting here.

and I'm the Adolf around here?

Yes. Yes you are

You would like to try and stifle debate by claiming what is posted is illegal- you are a retard.

Please engage a lawyer, and then for $180 for a 5 min consultation you can then have it put in writing that you ARE a retard definitively and legally.  

Quote:

If its lies and innuendo that you want to censor, then that would be slippery path to tread from your side of the fence...Mantra would have been banned from the internet along time ago

I've told you before IQ - get some help.   Sometimes I wonder if you aren't obsessed with me.  I have always tried to back up my statements with supporting information.  I have been writing into political forums for 3 years now and apart from your whinging and nastiness, no-one has complained about me spreading propaganda to a moderator of a forum.  

On the other hand you have been banned dozens of times for exactly what you accuse me of - lies and innuendo.

I will not put up with you constantly lying to other posters about me, and if you continue with this - I will complain to the necessary authorities about your slander.  You've had more chances than you deserve.

Cracticus wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 9:51pm:

"We apologise for giving you law and order which has helped    prevent you from slaughtering one another and using the    unfortunate for food purposes." "We apologise for developing large farms and properties, which    today feed you people, where before, you had the benefits of    living off the land and starving during droughts." Do you consider stuff like this and all the other putrid garbage accompanying it "truth" and "constructive criticism", then? I have already asked others to point out the alleged truth or facts in the aforesaid garbage. And another to point out the "information" he says it contains. So far nothing has been forthcoming. Only irrelevant rants from the keyboard mashers. Since you seem to want to defend it, perhaps you will oblige? And please stop putting too many Ls in words.

First, Pllllease tellll me who is the author of that quote.

Secondllly, there are truth and constructive criticism. Then there are llllies and indulllgences. Then there is patronisation and smugness.

Truth is onlllly worth defending if it is true. There is madness in defending a llllie.

The statement you mentioned is neither truth or criticism but a patronising statement with superior smug undertones made to the perceived weak.

Incidentalllly, do you feellll superior by being patronising towards me? Is that the measure of your sellllf worth? By ridiculing others? The next you'lllll be doing is to try and correct my grammar. Is this an Engllllish llllesson or a discussion.

bew f'kin hew Mantra

I haven't been banned for lies- I have been banned because I call a spade f'kin shovel...and in most cases you have been the one with the shovel in hand.

I have never complained to a 'moderator' about anything- I have however called you out every time you have displayed any thing (deliberately) factually incorrect. Sue me or think about what you post so you don't get called out on it.

Here's your latest from another forum

He made a commitment that he wouldn't sell uranium to India, but Howard must have signed something before he left office obligating Australia.


That's just one of many

mantra wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 8:44am:

Cracticus - just ignore some of the comments made by IQ, if they're particularly annoying.  IQ always has to have the last word, even after having lost an argument.

About sums it up. If you reckon Mantra tells lies, why are you so intent of proving her correct?

Your responses are getting more and more irrational. Is your head starting to hurt? Must be past your bedtime, Ikey — better toddle off. Sounds like you're getting over excited to me, not bored.

While you're lying alone in your little bed, trying to calm down, have a little think about what you've been saying. Consider the following: if I'm the Adolph around here, how come the views you express match his, and mine oppose them? If I'm the racist, how come my views are anti-racist, and yours and those of your fellow travellers are pro-racist? If I'm a retard, how come what I say makes sense, and what you say, to me or anyone else, is never anything more than childish invective?

Come come Adolf- your views are racist and you want to stifle debate. I'd say that puts you dead smack in Nazi territory.

Go back and read what you have written- it only makes sense from a Nazi propaganda perspective...but I doubt you will see it. Try taking off your PC blinkers.

Moonkey, get yoourself a sense of humoour.

I doon't knoow the authoor of the passage quooted. If yoou want to knoow whoo poosted it, take the troouble too read the thread and find oout for yoourself.

Might have been a good idea to do that before you presumed to pontificate to me on the difference between vilification and constructive criticism

Quote:

He made a commitment that he wouldn't sell uranium to India, but Howard must have signed something before he left office obligating Australia.

Are you serious IQ?  You call that lies and innuendo?  How do you know he didn't?  I was questioning - can't you see the difference?  I didn't say - Howard signed something before he left office obligating Australia - I said - but he must have!  The other posters supplied information to this questioning which I accepted.

You are an idiot.  You know nothing about human nature or politics.  Give it a rest.  Leave my name out of your conversations with other posters.  Don't go to another forum and drag bits and pieces back here.  Your "soul mate" neferti has a bad habit of doing that as well.  





 

Howard must have signed something before he left office obligating Australia

I was questioning

I see no question mark and I'll do as I please thank you very much

Cracticus wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 11:12pm:

Moonkey, get yoourself a sense of humoour. I doon't knoow the authoor of the passage quooted. If yoou want to knoow whoo poosted it, take the troouble too read the thread and find oout for yoourself. Might have been a good idea to do that before you presumed to pontificate to me on the difference between vilification and constructive criticism

I have a sense a humour Cracticus. You've already make that "joke" once before to me. And I took it as one. But saying it twice becomes no longer a joke but a ridicule.

And pls show me where was I pontificating with you (big word - you must be an academic)? Have a closer look... and you'll find that I was actually conversing with merou.


Dear Quack Quack,

"Not too comfortable fellow-travelling with LOWIQ and thoughtfreezone, either" are my words, not anyone else's. When you reply to them, quoting my words and no one elses, you are replying to me. Anyone can see that.



Your words not mine. What? Are you so paranoid that you think everyone is talking about you? Or perhaps, you're so high and mighty that you think everyone is talking with you?

Get over yourself.

Cracticus wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 11:12pm:

I doon't knoow the authoor of the passage quooted. If yoou want to knoow whoo poosted it, take the troouble too read the thread and find oout for yoourself.

Listen to you.... you're the one quoting the passage. Perhaps you should take the trouble to know who you are quoting before you post. You are the one challenging me to provide an answer. You therefore should know the context of the passage to which you posed the challenge.

IQSRLOW wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 11:03pm:

bew f'kin hew Mantra I haven't been banned for lies- I have been banned because I call a spade f'kin shovel...and in most cases you have been the one with the shovel in hand. I have never complained to a 'moderator' about anything- I have however called you out every time you have displayed any thing (deliberately) factually incorrect. Sue me or think about what you post so you don't get called out on it. Here's your latest from another forum He made a commitment that he wouldn't sell uranium to India, but Howard must have signed something before he left office obligating Australia. That's just one of many

Since when was a spade a shovel? Two different implements. If you say a spade is a shovel, you are telling a lie.

Since when was passing an opinion that something is probably illegal the same as "threatening" someone? Since when did "Laftard" equate with "Nazi", and since when did racists define themselves by objecting to racism?

Read your T-shirt, sunshine. Learn to use it. I could offer you remedial English, but I doubt you could afford my fees. You could apply for government subsidy, or at least an interest-free loan, but I guess that would be too socialist for a fascist like you.

Acid Monkey wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 11:32pm:

Cracticus wrote on Feb 29th, 2008 at 11:12pm: I doon't knoow the authoor of the passage quooted. If yoou want to knoow whoo poosted it, take the troouble too read the thread and find oout for yoourself. Listen to you.... you're the one quoting the passage. Perhaps you should take the trouble to know who you are quoting before you post. You are the one challenging me to provide an answer. You therefore should know the context of the passage to which you posed the challenge.

What do you mean by "context of the passage"?

All I did was quote excerpts from the passage, to make clear what I was objecting to. The passage appears to be anonymous. If you want to know its author, ask the person who posted it. He might know.
If you don't know who that is, do a bit of scrolling for yourself.

*Yawn*
Since when did "Laftard" equate with "Nazi", and since when did racists define themselves by objecting to racism?

Since you popped up sunshine  ::)

The only thing you could possibly teach is nose picking lessons to multiple sclerosis patients to give them confidence that they can actually get their finger in quicker than you can

I bet you can even get a grant for that...

Cracticus wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 11:50pm:

Acid Monkey wrote on Feb 29th, 2008 at 11:32pm: Cracticus wrote on Feb 29th, 2008 at 11:12pm: I doon't knoow the authoor of the passage quooted. If yoou want to knoow whoo poosted it, take the troouble too read the thread and find oout for yoourself. Listen to you.... you're the one quoting the passage. Perhaps you should take the trouble to know who you are quoting before you post. You are the one challenging me to provide an answer. You therefore should know the context of the passage to which you posed the challenge. What do you mean by "context of the passage"? All I did was quote excerpts from the passage, to make clear what I was objecting to. The passage appears to be anonymous. If you want to know its author, ask the person who posted it. He might know. If you don't know who that is, do a bit of scrolling for yourself.

Ok, let me get this straight.

You sent me a passage that someone else wrote because you wanted to make clear to me what you were objecting to. This, even though I wasn't even talking to you in the first place. You dragged me into your battle, challenged and patronised me and then expect me to know what the bugger you're talking about. Then when I queried you on who wrote that passage (so that I know the context of why it was said to better understand it) you accuse me of not taking the time to do my own research. WTF.

Do you even know who your friends and enemies are? Are you that paranoid?

Do you even know what you're talking about? (your words, not mine.)

It seems IQ (sorry dude) is not the only one who feels the need to have the last word. Read back on our interaction and then have a look in the mirror.

Your use big words do not disguise you as a troll and a flamer. You are an idiot and not worth my time in conversation.

It seems IQ (sorry dude) is not the only one who feels the need to have the last word.

Don't be sorry- I know I always have to have the last word. That's only because I like to make sure I'm correcting simpletons like stickler.

It's a never ending chore but somehow satisfying- hopefully he'll learn from his mistakes, but he's already shown that simple logic is beyond him so I have my doubts

Acid,

If you're paranoid about being ridiculed, stop being ridiculous. But I was only joking anyway. Before. Now I'm serious.

"Not too comfortable fellow-travelling with LOWIQ and thoughtfreezone, either are my words, not anyone else's. When you reply to them, quoting my words and no one else's, you are replying to me. Anyone can see that."

Well, they are my words. IQ conceded that. His mistake, acknowledged, and forgotten by now, I would have thought. I don't know what you are on about. As for having a closer look, I can't be bothered, and anyway I think it's you who needs to do that.

Anyone can enter a conversation here. You seem to think people need your permission to talk to you. And you tell me to get over myself?

Are you discriminating against academics? JOKE, I'd better add, in view of your difficulty in recognising jokes when you see them. Did one of your tutors pull you up on something recently? Give you a bad Mark? JOKE! Scared to call him or her an idiot so call me one instead? NOT A JOKE.

You sure it's me who needs to get over himself?

IQSRLOW wrote on Mar 1^st, 2008 at 12:29am:

It seems IQ (sorry dude) is not the only one who feels the need to have the last word. Don't be sorry- I know I always have to have the last word. That's only because I like to make sure I'm correcting simpletons like stickler. It's a never ending chore but somehow satisfying- hopefully he'll learn from his mistakes, but he's already shown that simple logic is beyond him so I have my doubts

Logic as simple as yours is beyond anyone but a simpleton.

Yawn- another zinger..not

Just a hint- Perhaps take some time with your replies. It seem that your brain needs time to spin up to speed. In a few years you might actually be working at full capacity.

That way you might make a semblance of sense here and I am am sure that you will go through less toilet paper at home wiping your mouth.

...it'll save the trees and all that jazz

I'm happy to have a brain that doesn't spin, thank you, O yawning one.

I'm happy to have a brain that doesn't spin

Sadly, it doesn't do much at all either...

Well, they are my words. IQ conceded that. His mistake, acknowledged, and forgotten by now, I would have thought. I don't know what you are on about.  

Those words were brought up by you from a totally irrelevant thread- what was the point you were hoping to rehash? Your arrogance? No need everyone already realises that you are a d!ck.

As for having a closer look, I can't be bothered,

Ahh..That must be because you were wrong...Another trait of the leftard. Can't admit or see when they are wrong, so just ignore it.

Cracticus wrote on Mar 1^st, 2008 at 12:31am:

Well, they are my words. IQ conceded that. His mistake, acknowledged, and forgotten by now, I would have thought. I don't know what you are on about. As for having a closer look, I can't be bothered, and anyway I think it's you who needs to do that. Anyone can enter a conversation here. You seem to think people need your permission to talk to you. And you tell me to get over myself? Are you discriminating against academics? JOKE, I'd better add, in view of your difficulty in recognising jokes when you see them. Did one of your tutors pull you up on something recently? Give you a bad Mark? JOKE! Scared to call him or her an idiot so call me one instead? NOT A JOKE.

On the contrary, my sarcastic remarks re: academics, is to illustrate your guise as an academic or to give the illusion of intelligence. BTW, that was a JOKE. Not! You seem to to joke a lot. You have a serious discussion and somewhere in the middle there there is a joke throw in. Maybe you should start using smileys to illustrate when you're joking and when you're not. Oh I forgot, you don't like smileys.

Sure, anyone can enter a conversation. However, usually when you enter a conversation you join in on what they are talking about. That's what entering a conversation is all about. But if you enter a conversation and speak totally out of the context of the conversation and then expect that person to know what you are on about is rude. What are you like in the real world? Do you have any social skills?

You can't be bothered or are you too weak to review and realise your mistake.

Oh, and there's a joke in there somewhere. See if you can spot it.

IQSRLOW wrote on Mar 1^st, 2008 at 1:12am:

Well, they are my words. IQ conceded that. His mistake, acknowledged, and forgotten by now, I would have thought. I don't know what you are on about.   Those words were brought up by you from a totally irrelevant thread- what was the point you were hoping to rehash? Your arrogance? No need everyone already realises that you are a d!ck.

Hi IQ,

Sorry, but I have to clarify. I brought it up to illustrate his "rule" for "obvious right of reply". I was replying to merou and just because his "words" were in there he probably felt that I was replying to him.

IQSRLOW wrote on Mar 1^st, 2008 at 12:58am:

I'm happy to have a brain that doesn't spin Sadly, it doesn't do much at all either...

Seems to be having an effect on yours. You've been getting less and less rational as you strive for your infamous last word. So far you've claimed that someone you label a leftard is like Hitler; and that someone preaching against racism is a racist; and that  a poster raising a question must be stating a fact because you can't see a question mark. I've heard of fuzzy logic, but yours takes the cake.

Maybe, though, with a bit of luck, my brain will have a beneficial effect on whatever you have in your head. Maybe someday, if you ever develop an IQ higher than the suburban speed limit, you might look back at what you've written here and wonder at how silly you've made yourself sound.

Acid,

I'm polite to polite people, rude to rude ones. When confronted with idiotic rudeness I can be very rude indeed; and without resorting to childish, stupid insults.

I'm polite enough to anyone when I don't know them to credit them with the intelligence to know a joke when they see one. I would expect an intelligent person to know rudeness when they see it, too. I wouldn't call you an idiot out of the blue; and I wouldn't say that everyone already knows you're a d!ck. I leave that sort of immature nonsense to the unintelligent among us.

To quote someone's words in conversation with someone else, and then deny the words' author the right to defend his words is beyond rudeness. If you didn't even know what the words referred to, what the hell were you quoting them for?

As for a joke in your latest effort, the only joke I see in that is you. Probably, though, you will grow up OK. The one who without provocation called you a d!ck probably will not. Sorry if any of my words are too long for you. Then again, if I limited my vocabulary to suit you I would be guilty of patronisation. The classic lose-lose situation.

How interesting.  What was the topic again?

...

wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 7:39am:

Acid Monkey wrote on Mar 1st, 2008 at 1:19am: Cracticus wrote on Mar 1st, 2008 at 12:31am: Well, they are my words. IQ conceded that. His mistake, acknowledged, and forgotten by now, I would have thought. I don't know what you are on about. As for having a closer look, I can't be bothered, and anyway I think it's you who needs to do that. Anyone can enter a conversation here. You seem to think people need your permission to talk to you. And you tell me to get over myself? Are you discriminating against academics? JOKE, I'd better add, in view of your difficulty in recognising jokes when you see them. Did one of your tutors pull you up on something recently? Give you a bad Mark? JOKE! Scared to call him or her an idiot so call me one instead? NOT A JOKE. On the contrary, my sarcastic remarks re: academics, is to illustrate your guise as an academic or to give the illusion of intelligence. BTW, that was a JOKE. Not! You seem to to joke a lot. You have a serious discussion and somewhere in the middle there there is a joke throw in. Maybe you should start using smileys to illustrate when you're joking and when you're not. Oh I forgot, you don't like smileys. Sure, anyone can enter a conversation. However, usually when you enter a conversation you join in on what they are talking about. That's what entering a conversation is all about. But if you enter a conversation and speak totally out of the context of the conversation and then expect that person to know what you are on about is rude. What are you like in the real world? Do you have any social skills? You can't be bothered or are you too weak to review and realise your mistake. Oh, and there's a joke in there somewhere. See if you can spot it. Well Cracticus I think you are begginning to see how regressive /sarcastic and obnoxious this "character" is .She has no social skills at all and btw you aint see nothin' yet. This is her on her best behaviour believe it or not. She can really get down in the gutter for you if you insist. Shes only in here because no other forum wants her. Why she cant even fathom if she' male or female except some on here know her very long history so its not lost on all of us. ::) It becomes obvious sooner rather than later engaging her is a waste of bandwidth.

Errrr that's a bit harsh about AcidMonkey dude.  I believe Acid is a bloody good poster who usually avoids unpleasantness - but our latest flamer seems to have brought out the worst in Acid.

deepthought wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 8:16am:

wrote on Mar 2nd, 2008 at 7:39am: Acid Monkey wrote on Mar 1st, 2008 at 1:19am: Cracticus wrote on Mar 1st, 2008 at 12:31am: Well, they are my words. IQ conceded that. His mistake, acknowledged, and forgotten by now, I would have thought. I don't know what you are on about. As for having a closer look, I can't be bothered, and anyway I think it's you who needs to do that. Anyone can enter a conversation here. You seem to think people need your permission to talk to you. And you tell me to get over myself? Are you discriminating against academics? JOKE, I'd better add, in view of your difficulty in recognising jokes when you see them. Did one of your tutors pull you up on something recently? Give you a bad Mark? JOKE! Scared to call him or her an idiot so call me one instead? NOT A JOKE. On the contrary, my sarcastic remarks re: academics, is to illustrate your guise as an academic or to give the illusion of intelligence. BTW, that was a JOKE. Not! You seem to to joke a lot. You have a serious discussion and somewhere in the middle there there is a joke throw in. Maybe you should start using smileys to illustrate when you're joking and when you're not. Oh I forgot, you don't like smileys. Sure, anyone can enter a conversation. However, usually when you enter a conversation you join in on what they are talking about. That's what entering a conversation is all about. But if you enter a conversation and speak totally out of the context of the conversation and then expect that person to know what you are on about is rude. What are you like in the real world? Do you have any social skills? You can't be bothered or are you too weak to review and realise your mistake. Oh, and there's a joke in there somewhere. See if you can spot it. Well Cracticus I think you are begginning to see how regressive /sarcastic and obnoxious this "character" is .She has no social skills at all and btw you aint see nothin' yet. This is her on her best behaviour believe it or not. She can really get down in the gutter for you if you insist. Shes only in here because no other forum wants her. Why she cant even fathom if she' male or female except some on here know her very long history so its not lost on all of us. ::) It becomes obvious sooner rather than later engaging her is a waste of bandwidth. Errrr that's a bit harsh about AcidMonkey dude.  I believe Acid is a bloody good poster who usually avoids unpleasantness - but our latest flamer seems to have brought out the worst in Acid.

I believed Cracitius was talking about someone else..my stuffup..Acid is a good poster.

Quote:

Those words were brought up by you from a totally irrelevant thread- what was the point you were hoping to rehash? Your arrogance? No need everyone already realises that you are a d!ck.

IQ - start thinking about what you are saying.  You win hands down for bringing up words from totally irrelevant threads.  How many times have you done it to me and to add to your stupid statement - you go to other forums to do it?

Just show a bit of courtesy to new posters for a change.  No wonder people only pop their head in for a few days and leave after seeing you in action - no-one is going to hang around to be belittled and abused for no good reason apart from your lack of understanding of the subject.

Just show a bit of courtesy to new posters for a change.

A new poster than deserve coutesy will get it- without ever engaging before, this @sshat pops up here and his first reply is an insult to DT and myself.

Calling him a f@ckwit is as much courtesy as he deserves

IQ, this is your last warning. My next step will be to ban you. With all the times you have been banned from other forums, you should have figured out what it is you are doing wrong. I have asked you plenty of times not to insult people.

The following posts from you are inappropriate:

---

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172229352/189#189

Perhaps you should go back to school and ask the teacher to explain context to you but first wash the sand out of your mangina otherwise you will find it hard to concentrate with all that chafing

The thought of a leftard such as ignorant as yourself teaching anyone anything is a joke in itself. The first thought that would come to mind with anyone reading any of your diatribe is 'ignorant blowhard'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172229352/194#194

Just had to add that you're an ignorant leftard spelling nazi as well- oh the shame

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172229352/200#200

You would like to try and stifle debate by claiming what is posted is illegal- you are a retard.

Please engage a lawyer, and then for $180 for a 5 min consultation you can then have it put in writing that you ARE a retard definitively and legally.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172229352/215#215

Don't be sorry- I know I always have to have the last word. That's only because I like to make sure I'm correcting simpletons like stickler.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172229352/218#218

That way you might make a semblance of sense here and I am am sure that you will go through less toilet paper at home wiping your mouth.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172229352/221#221

No need everyone already realises that you are a d!ck.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172229352/231#231

Calling him a f@ckwit is as much courtesy as he deserves

---

Everyone else, please stick to the topic, not each other.

http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm

Send a message to Kevvy- I'm sure he'll apologise on my behalf

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 10:09am:

IQ, this is your last warning. My next step will be to ban you. With all the times you have been banned from other forums, you should have figured out what it is you are doing wrong. I have asked you plenty of times not to insult people. The following posts from you are inappropriate: <snip> Everyone else, please stick to the topic, not each other.

Unfair dude.  The new sock puppet Carcktipus (or whatever it is) has set out to inflame.  Don't punish regular posters for responding (perhaps inappropriately) to trolls.

Why does it matter whether he is a sock puppet?

Don't respond to trolls. Those are the rules. Not that I think Cracticus is a troll, but whatever. Everyone is a troll to someone.

Just stop insulting people. It's that simple.

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 11:19am:

Why does it matter whether he is a sock puppet? Don't respond to trolls. Those are the rules. Not that I think Cracticus is a troll, but whatever. Everyone is a troll to someone. Just stop insulting people. It's that simple.

Well as a new poster I find lowiq trys to offend everyone who dosn't tow the neo conservative line, I would think cracticus was continually being trolled by noiq, not the other way around.

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 11:19am:

Why does it matter whether he is a sock puppet? Don't respond to trolls. Those are the rules. Not that I think Cracticus is a troll, but whatever. Everyone is a troll to someone. Just stop insulting people. It's that simple.

So trolls (who are obvious sock puppets) can insult regular posters and launch into a campaign of hatred and if regular posters respond they get booted?   I'm not sure I like the way you administer the  site dude.  You have problems with attracting new posters and now I know why.

Well as a new poster I find lowiq trys to offend everyone who dosn't tow the neo conservative line,

Only because left whiners are offensive...not to mention overly sensitive. I'm sure shares in Kleenex must have gone up overnight when Kevvy won the election

It's the same rules for everyone DT.

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 11:33am:

It's the same rules for everyone DT.

Obviously not.  You're only threatening one party with a ban.  Not the instigator though.

Quote:

You're only threatening one party with a ban.  Not the instigator though

Deepthought - I can understand how you feel.  You are the only right whinger left on this forum, apart from IQ - you need someone to back you up - but at what cost to Ozpolitics?

mantra wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 11:41am:

Quote: You're only threatening one party with a ban.  Not the instigator though Deepthought - I can understand how you feel.  You are the only right whinger left on this forum, apart from IQ - you need someone to back you up - but at what cost to Ozpolitics?

It's not about me dude.  I don't recollect mentioning my name.

And if you had the same sense of fair play, to everyone, that I possess, you would be saying the same.  If the administrator bans a long term member because he permits new sock puppets to launch flaming attacks, then what happens when it happens to be you under attack and you respond and get threatened with a ban?  I would be saying the same mantra.

Personally I think banning is cowardly but if it's going to happen then it ought be equitable.   This is not.

You are the only right whinger left on this forum, apart from IQ - you need someone to back you up - but at what cost to Ozpolitics?

As DT has shown on numerous occasions, he is perfectly capable of showing up you left whiners as being incorrect on most issues- he doesn't need backing up.

You lefty's on the other hand seem to feel the need to silence all who don't join in on your general back slapping and high fiving of ridiculous decision making.

Quote:

As DT has shown on numerous occasions, he is perfectly capable of showing up you left whiners as being incorrect on most issues- he doesn't need backing up.

You are so funny IQ.   ::)  DT has a good little ally in you.

wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 11:25am:

freediver wrote on Mar 2nd, 2008 at 11:19am: Why does it matter whether he is a sock puppet? Don't respond to trolls. Those are the rules. Not that I think Cracticus is a troll, but whatever. Everyone is a troll to someone. Just stop insulting people. It's that simple. Well as a new poster I find lowiq trys to offend everyone who dosn't tow the neo conservative line, I would think cracticus was continually being trolled by noiq, not the other way around.

Atheist you are correct..

mantra wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 11:51am:

Quote: As DT has shown on numerous occasions, he is perfectly capable of showing up you left whiners as being incorrect on most issues- he doesn't need backing up. You are so funny IQ.   ::)  DT has a good little ally in you.

Keep me out of your paranoia dude.

Atheist you are correct..

Sycophant

deepthought wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 11:46am:

mantra wrote on Mar 2nd, 2008 at 11:41am: Quote: You're only threatening one party with a ban.  Not the instigator though Deepthought - I can understand how you feel.  You are the only right whinger left on this forum, apart from IQ - you need someone to back you up - but at what cost to Ozpolitics? It's not about me dude.  I don't recollect mentioning my name. And if you had the same sense of fair play, to everyone, that I possess, you would be saying the same.  If the administrator bans a long term member because he permits new sock puppets to launch flaming attacks, then what happens when it happens to be you under attack and you respond and get threatened with a ban?  I would be saying the same mantra. Personally I think banning is cowardly but if it's going to happen then it ought be equitable.   This is not.

you've been here 5 minutes..you wouldnt know...

DT I don't care who you think 'instigated' what. IQ is a big boy. There is no need for you to make excuses for his lack of self control.

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 12:14pm:

DT I don't care who you think 'instigated' what. IQ is a big boy. There is no need for you to make excuses for his lack of self control.

I didn't, nor am I, making excuses.  In fact you will find I said the behaviour was 'perhaps inappropriate'.  I object to singling out one party with threats because of your feelings.  If you apply rules which you say apply to everyone then everyone must be included in your threat to ban.

Your subjectivity in this is obvious and ugly.  You, supported by the chorus from others here who also have allowed their feelings to influence their objectivity, are displaying a prejudicial attitude towards the respondent, not the instigator who has obviously arrived to do just what you are permitting him/her to do.  And you are blinded to it by your own bias.

My objections would apply to any single person you singled out to persecute, exploiting your power to do so  - like Bob Brown does - irrespective of my opinion or feelings towards that person.  It is just fair play that is at issue.  Something most of you don't appear to care about it seems.

deepthought wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 1:47pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 2nd, 2008 at 12:14pm: DT I don't care who you think 'instigated' what. IQ is a big boy. There is no need for you to make excuses for his lack of self control. I didn't, nor am I, making excuses.  In fact you will find I said the behaviour was 'perhaps inappropriate'.  I object to singling out one party with threats because of your feelings.  If you apply rules which you say apply to everyone then everyone must be included in your threat to ban. [highlight]Your subjectivity in this is obvious and ugly.  You, supported by the chorus from others here who also have allowed their feelings to influence their objectivity, are displaying a prejudicial attitude towards the respondent, not the instigator who has obviously arrived to do just what you are permitting him/her to do.  And you are blinded to it by your own bias[/highlight]. My objections would apply to any single person you singled out to persecute, exploiting your power to do so  - like Bob Brown does - irrespective of my opinion or feelings towards that person.  It is just fair play that is at issue.  Something most of you don't appear to care about it seems.

Like I said DT..you have been here but 5 minutes in relation to the probems caused by IQ....You have seen only the "good" side.

FD is very tolerant and patient as anyone in here will attest..[those who have been here for more than a year anyway..] patient to the point of bringing detriment and  downfall of his own forum. She is the reason it has been hard to attract posters.

He has let IQ get away with the most ugly and devisive behaviour you can imagine, and we have all borne this affront to OUR rights to post in a peaceful environment.

Dont blame FD for driving away posters with one sided rules, thats not it at all..Its IQ who has driven out decent posters..many many posters.

Potential posters take one look and move on...who could be bothered with humouring and putting up with the continual flaming?
Nothing wrong with cractitucus or AM either.

You have a hide being here 5 minutes and making judgements about the long term and underlying problems of this forum.

You got my Rel.Thread because of its [ IQs]intensive and unrelenting flaming of my forum.

Objectivity???...We join in the chorus because we are sick to death of the chaos IQ causes...you know nothing..Take a stroll back thru the tthreads of last yr  and beyond..eyeopening.

Blow your nose little boy and pull up your pants. :'(.having  a tantie to protect a troll is pointless. noone is buying it..

wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 1:56pm:

deepthought wrote on Mar 2nd, 2008 at 1:47pm: freediver wrote on Mar 2nd, 2008 at 12:14pm: DT I don't care who you think 'instigated' what. IQ is a big boy. There is no need for you to make excuses for his lack of self control. I didn't, nor am I, making excuses.  In fact you will find I said the behaviour was 'perhaps inappropriate'.  I object to singling out one party with threats because of your feelings.  If you apply rules which you say apply to everyone then everyone must be included in your threat to ban. Your subjectivity in this is obvious and ugly.  You, supported by the chorus from others here who also have allowed their feelings to influence their objectivity, are displaying a prejudicial attitude towards the respondent, not the instigator who has obviously arrived to do just what you are permitting him/her to do.  And you are blinded to it by your own bias. My objections would apply to any single person you singled out to persecute, exploiting your power to do so  - like Bob Brown does - irrespective of my opinion or feelings towards that person.  It is just fair play that is at issue.  Something most of you don't appear to care about it seems. Like I said DT..you have been here but 5 minutes in relation to the probems caused by IQ....You have seen only the "good" side. FD is very tolerant and aptient as anyone in here will attest..[those who have been here for more than a year anyway..] He has let IQ get away with the most ugly and devisive behaviour you can imagine, and we have all borne this affront to OUR rights to post in a peaceful environment. Dont blame FD for driving away posters with one sided rules, thats not it at all..Its IQ who has driven out decent posters.. Potential posters take one look and move on...who could be bothered with humouring and putting up with the continual flaming? Nothing wrong with cractitucus ir AM either. You have a hide being here 5 minutes and making judgements about the long term and underlying problems of this forum. You got my Rel.thread because of its [ IQs]intensive and unrelenting flaming of my forum.

It's not necessary to be here for decades to recognise prejudicial moderating.

And you have no rights other than those given you by the site's owner.  That is the very thing I am declaiming loud and clear (though you don't seem to get it).  That the 'rights' he/she provides need to be impartial to be of any value at all.

If a multitude of people are in a brawl all of them hold some responsibility with the instigator holding the lion's share of it.  Freediver is threatening one of those in a brawl, not all of those, for the act of self-defence.  It is very poor policing and any fair minded person would object.

As you are supporting freediver's bias I can only conclude you don't belong in the latter group.

Quote:

It's not necessary to be here for decades to recognise prejudicial moderating. And you have no rights other than those given you by the site's owner.  That is the very thing I am declaiming loud and clear (though you don't seem to get it).  That the 'rights' he/she provides need to be impartial to be of any value at all. If a multitude of people are in a brawl all of them hold some responsibility with the instigator holding the lion's share of it.  Freediver is threatening one of those in a brawl, not all of those, for the act of self-defence.  It is very poor policing and any fair minded person would object. As you are supporting freediver's bias I can only conclude you don't belong in the latter group.

One persons rights doesnt take precedence over all others - thats why they call you a right whinger I guess. ::)

Ground hog day, hey DT?

If you apply rules which you say apply to everyone then everyone must be included in your threat to ban.

Everyone is included and if they continue insulting people for as long as IQ has with as many warnings, they will also be banned. Obviously I am not going to ban everyone as soon as one person crosses the line just to satisfy some warped criteria of objectivity.

Aussie wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 3:02pm:

Ground hog day, hey DT?

It is mate.  Still I will never stop defending the rights of individuals to a fair hearing.  Something most forums oppose because of their admin prejudice.

PA has bias in bucketsful.  You can attest to that.

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 3:20pm:

If you apply rules which you say apply to everyone then everyone must be included in your threat to ban. Everyone is included and if they continue insulting people for as long as IQ has with as many warnings, they will also be banned. Obviously I am not going to ban everyone as soon as one person crosses the line just to satisfy some warped criteria of objectivity.

Objectivity is not warped.  It is simply ethical to apply objectivity to every situation - you concede here that your bias is at play.

wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 2:16pm:

Quote: It's not necessary to be here for decades to recognise prejudicial moderating. And you have no rights other than those given you by the site's owner.  That is the very thing I am declaiming loud and clear (though you don't seem to get it).  That the 'rights' he/she provides need to be impartial to be of any value at all. If a multitude of people are in a brawl all of them hold some responsibility with the instigator holding the lion's share of it.  Freediver is threatening one of those in a brawl, not all of those, for the act of self-defence.  It is very poor policing and any fair minded person would object. As you are supporting freediver's bias I can only conclude you don't belong in the latter group. One persons rights doesnt take precedence over all others - thats why they call you a right whinger I guess. ::)

They don't call me a right 'whinger', though you and mantra do.  

But rights are not hierarchical - they are absolute, or they are not rights at all.

You suggest favourable treatment for some and unfavourable treatment for others.  That is not the position of a right winger.  It is a leftard thing - witness Bob Brown.  Righties, like me, apply the same objectivity to everyone.

Quote:

They don't call me a right 'whinger', though you and mantra do.   But rights are not hierarchical - they are absolute, or they are not rights at all. You suggest favourable treatment for some and unfavourable treatment for others.  That is not the position of a right winger.  It is a leftard thing - witness Bob Brown.

Of course there has to be a cut off point for everyone deepthought,  but "right whingers" isn't a personal attack, it's just a teensy bit derogatory to those who support the Liberals.  If that is the worst that was written here, then this site would be full of christians.  Leftard is worse, because it's actually making fun of those who are retarded and that is an unfortunate affliction.   People can do something about being a whinger - whereas those who are retarded can't?  Can you see the difference?

Besides inferring Bob Brown is retarded is libelous, when he is actually a very intelligent, artistic and altruistic human being.  On the other hand we can apply a name like rodent to Howard because his own party have used that term to describe him.  :)


Quote:

Righties, like me, apply the same objectivity to everyone

Hmmmmm - well we'd have to take a vote on that - seeing as that's where all the abuse comes from in the first place (not you personally - but those with similar leanings).

deepthought wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 3:59pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 2nd, 2008 at 3:02pm: Ground hog day, hey DT? It is mate.  Still I will never stop defending the rights of individuals to a fair hearing.  Something most forums oppose because of their admin prejudice. PA has bias in bucketsful.  You can attest to that.

Yes, PA had its problems which are largely now resolved with the departure of AM.  Boxy turns up now and again but it is pretty much unmoderated now.  Shame it is to be axed, or so it seems.

As for this IQ person (whom I suspect is female), I have successfully managed to ignore s/him, despite his/her best provocative efforts that I engage with them.

Shoot me if I ever lapse and respond to s/him.

mantra wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 4:57pm:

Quote: They don't call me a right 'whinger', though you and mantra do.   But rights are not hierarchical - they are absolute, or they are not rights at all. You suggest favourable treatment for some and unfavourable treatment for others.  That is not the position of a right winger.  It is a leftard thing - witness Bob Brown.   Of course there has to be a cut off point for everyone deepthought,  but "right whingers" isn't a personal attack, it's just a teensy bit derogatory to those who support the Liberals.  If that is the worst that was written here, then this site would be full of christians.  Leftard is worse, because it's actually making fun of those who are retarded and that is an unfortunate affliction.   People can do something about being a whinger - whereas those who are retarded can't?  Can you see the difference? Besides inferring Bob Brown is retarded is libelous, when he is actually a very intelligent, artistic and altruistic human being.  On the other hand we can apply a name like rodent to Howard because his own party have used that term to describe him.  :) [quote]Righties, like me, apply the same objectivity to everyone

Hmmmmm - well we'd have to take a vote on that - seeing as that's where all the abuse comes from in the first place (not you personally - but those with similar leanings).
[/quote]

I don't care if you two choose to follow the leader and call me a 'right whinger' - it's a label is all.  And 'leftard' has nothing to do with intellectual retardation - it is political retardation.  In my experience leftards have very little awareness of reality and little knowledge of the true social and political situation - they are easily undone with facts.  They regurgitate opinions based on restricted data (they even believe in economists). They have limited sources of information, have a poor concept of social structure, operate with a very narrow political and social focus, and they are known to engage in aggressive acts of persecution - witness Bob Brown.

People who may be genuinely retarded probably vote Liebor too - I don't know that for sure but the model fits.   ;)


And I am surprised to hear it is we righties who are abusive.  I have never witnessed an unruly mob of conservatives yelling abuse at people as they engage in violent street marches and I would very much like you to provide evidence of that, similar to these pictures of a compassionate, intelligent, artistic and altruistic mob of leftoids -

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20070603/capt.sge.jog57.030607175143.photo03.photo.default-512x341.jpg http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/284241a9-e970-4208-b274-b5bc86a9ef49/g8summitdemos.jpg http://www.solarnavigator.net/media/media_images/G8_2001_riot_Incidenti_a_Corso_Torino_demonstrations.jpg

Aussie wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 5:09pm:

deepthought wrote on Mar 2nd, 2008 at 3:59pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 2nd, 2008 at 3:02pm: Ground hog day, hey DT? It is mate.  Still I will never stop defending the rights of individuals to a fair hearing.  Something most forums oppose because of their admin prejudice. PA has bias in bucketsful.  You can attest to that. Yes, PA had its problems which are largely now resolved with the departure of AM.  Boxy turns up now and again but it is pretty much unmoderated now.  Shame it is to be axed, or so it seems. As for this IQ person (whom I suspect is female), I have successfully managed to ignore s/him, despite his/her best provocative efforts that I engage with them. Shoot me if I ever lapse and respond to s/him.

Boxy suspended you dude.  I recollect defending you at the time too mate - and you and I have never seen eye to eye.  If you believe in the rights of the individual you had better believe in equality - or you are just blowing wind and not saying anything at all.

Interesting deepthought.  So those photos are supposed to represent labor supporters no doubt, although they look very much like those riots in France where minority groups were  fighting against oppression by the government.


Quote:

And I am surprised to hear it is we righties who are abusive.  I have never witnessed an unruly mob of conservatives yelling abuse at people as they engage in violent street marches and I would very much like you to provide evidence of that, similar to these pictures of a compassionate, intelligent, artistic and altruistic mob of leftoids -

I was actually talking about verbal abuse on some of these political forums but there is some truth in the fact that the conservatives don't usually display themselves as an unruly mob engaging in violent street marches, although they are responsible for them.  The conservatives are highly organised and powerful and there are no sticks and stones thrown by these elitists.  Instead they prefer to use powerful munitions, aircraft, ships, and land warfare systems to destroy their perceived enemies, which usually means the "enemy" has something they want desperately eg. oil, minerals, uranium.   After they've taken control and stolen what they want, they leave death,  destruction and permanent devastation in their wake.  Demonstrations don't usually leave orphans and the death of young children either.

---

Boxy would never have had the balls, nor reason, to suspend me.  AM certainly had the personal motivation.

But....

............ferfuxsake...................


My post up there ^^^^ was meant to convey the message that if I can ignore an ignorant gnat, so can we all.

That pic is profoundly sad/heartbreaking  mantra..

What country /war is it ...do you know?

Aussie wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 8:37pm:

Boxy would never have had the balls, nor reason, to suspend me.  AM certainly had the personal motivation. But.... ............ferfuxsake................... My post up there ^^^^ was meant to convey the message that if I can ignore an ignorant gnat, so can we all.

Not true for all Aussie, as much as it sounds like a great idea.

It was a photo from the Iraq War Oceans.  There were many more - profoundly worse, but people viewing them would probably have been sick.

mantra wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 8:50pm:

It was a photo from the Iraq War Oceans.  There were many more - profoundly worse, but people viewing them would probably have been sick.

I was not talking of war - but as you have, why don't we.  War is not actually something only right wing politicians engage in - if it's Iraq you are bringing into the discussion then Democrat Bill Clinton was just as guilty as any of the Republicans.  He engaged in low level warfare throughout his Presidency enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and periodically lobbing cruise missiles into Iraq.  No idea what damage they caused as he fired them from vessels hundreds of miles away.  He also undertook air strikes from time to time.  Who knows what suffering it caused - no one saw from the air.

And President George H Bush's co-conspirator in Desert Storm was Bob Hawke - I believe you will find he's a leftard.

What's more the Coalition of the Willing in the more recent war you posted a picture of was fought mainly with troops from two countries - one of whom was Britain with the PM being Tony Blair  - I believe you will find he's a leftard.

And by the way, more people have been killed by leftards than both world wars in the 20th century - you will have heard of Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot no doubt?  When it comes to violence, death and war the righties are a long way behind the violent left.

Aussie wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 8:37pm:

Boxy would never have had the balls, nor reason, to suspend me.  AM certainly had the personal motivation. But.... ............ferfuxsake................... My post up there ^^^^ was meant to convey the message that if I can ignore an ignorant gnat, so can we all.

I expect you were asleep when he posted this on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 1:57 pm:      


Quote:

Aussie's account has been suspended for 2 days for willfully posting mod complaints in an unrelated thread (it's not like there aren't plenty of others in off topic dealing with moderation issues to post that to ATM).

Boxy suspended you a few times sleepyhead.

deepthought wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 9:14pm:

mantra wrote on Mar 2nd, 2008 at 8:50pm: It was a photo from the Iraq War Oceans.  There were many more - profoundly worse, but people viewing them would probably have been sick. I was not talking of war - but as you have, why don't we.  War is not actually something only right wing politicians engage in - if it's Iraq you are bringing into the discussion then Democrat Bill Clinton was just as guilty as any of the Republicans.  He engaged in low level warfare throughout his Presidency enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and periodically lobbing cruise missiles into Iraq.  No idea what damage they caused as he fired them from vessels hundreds of miles away.  He also undertook air strikes from time to time.  Who knows what suffering it caused - no one saw from the air. And President George H Bush's co-conspirator in Desert Storm was Bob Hawke - I believe you will find he's a leftard. What's more the Coalition of the Willing in the more recent war you posted a picture of was fought mainly with troops from two countries - one of whom was Britain with the PM being Tony Blair  - I believe you will find he's a leftard. And by the way, more people have been killed by leftards than both world wars in the 20th century - you will have heard of Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot no doubt?  When it comes to violence, death and war the righties are a long way behind the violent left.

Ok Mr right "whinger/whiner...why dont you give your self a little break now..isnt that the phone I hear a calling you? Maybe its  your great Aunt Faith [you know the psychic spooky one who was always more like your guardian angel]

"DT..DT..all the leftards are more retarded than ever before..dont encourage them , just take the high moral ground and preserve your dignity...save yourself !!"

:)



http://www.saigan.com/kidscorner/comics/spooky.jpg

wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 9:21pm:

Ok Mr right "whinger/whiner...why dont you give your self a little break now..isnt that the phone I hear a calling you? Maybe its  your great Aunt Faith [you know the psychic spooky one who was always more like your guardian angel] "DT..DT..all the leftards are more retarded than ever before..dont encourage them , just take the high moral ground and preserve your dignity...save yourself !!" :)

Are you drunk?

Quote:

I expect you were asleep when he posted this on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 1:57 pm:

The arse hole!  Just as well I was asleep!

But, it probably was AM dressed up as a sheep shagger!

deepthought wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 9:23pm:

wrote on Mar 2nd, 2008 at 9:21pm: Ok Mr right "whinger/whiner...why dont you give your self a little break now..isnt that the phone I hear a calling you? Maybe its  your great Aunt Faith [you know the psychic spooky one who was always more like your guardian angel] "DT..DT..all the leftards are more retarded than ever before..dont encourage them , just take the high moral ground and preserve your dignity...save yourself !!" :) Are you drunk?

Dont drink..Im this happy stone cold sober...lucky me

wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 9:28pm:

deepthought wrote on Mar 2nd, 2008 at 9:23pm: wrote on Mar 2nd, 2008 at 9:21pm: Ok Mr right "whinger/whiner...why dont you give your self a little break now..isnt that the phone I hear a calling you? Maybe its  your great Aunt Faith [you know the psychic spooky one who was always more like your guardian angel] "DT..DT..all the leftards are more retarded than ever before..dont encourage them , just take the high moral ground and preserve your dignity...save yourself !!" :) Are you drunk? Dont drink..Im this happy stone cold sober...lucky me

I wasn't commenting on the happiness - it's the incomprehensibility that caused me to think that.   It's a pity you're not drunk - you would have had an excuse for that mess.

But I'm surprised to hear you say you don't drink.  What's all this then? Porkies?


Quote:

I go for spirits/cocktails and even beer.   I almost forgot..Bloody Marys are great! Love Baileys merou..thanks for the Bundy mixer tip..Ill try that next time.

I do believe you said that.

Thats when I do have a drink..which is practically never.

No fooling you is there  

Sharp as a tack   ::)

deepthought wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 8:16am:

....but our latest flamer seems to have brought out the worst in Acid.

LOL. Yes, he has the dubious honour of being my first "heated exchange".

I was actually sympathetic to his point of view (and still am). However, he seemed to think that I was attacking him. Perhaps, from his exchange with IQ he took it out on me, (and he called ME sensitive). LOL.

Furthermore, as far as left/right wing is concern, Cracticus was flaming both IQ (right wing) and I (left wing). Perhaps he's from the centre faction or just simply paranoid?

;)

Anyway, I won't give him an ounce of my energy henceforth.

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 12:14pm:

DT I don't care who you think 'instigated' what. IQ is a big boy. There is no need for you to make excuses for his lack of self control.

With anonymity of the net how do we know that IQ is a big boy (or girl  ;)).

If IQ is being considered for a ban or the sin bin then I suppose Cracticus (instigator) and I (respondent) should be as well.

Sure, past behaviour should be considered however, each misdemeanor should be judged case by case. Even Mick Gatto's killing of Andrew Veniamin was judge as self defence in spite of his past.

:)

I don't plan on banning anyone over a single 'offence'. I like to give people plenty of opportunities to learn what is acceptable here.

As for this IQ person (whom I suspect is female)

You want me to teabag you too? I never realised my scrotum was this popular and tasty- but it would seem that lots of the left like hanging off my nuts.

Does Bob Brown give lessons in this sort of thing?

IQSRLOW wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2008 at 1:51pm:

As for this IQ person (whom I suspect is female) You want me to teabag you too? I never realised my scrotum was this popular and tasty- but it would seem that lots of the left like hanging off my nuts. Does Bob Brown give lessons in this sort of thing?

Back so soon IQ?

You and Aussie can argue over who get the left one and who gets the right one

Does anyone have any idea how low this forum looks when people make or repeat sexual slang?

mantra wrote on Mar 4^th, 2008 at 9:54am:

More filth.  Oceans I know you don't like me saying this - but you encourage IQ.   IQ - you just won't learn either.  Do you have any idea how low this forum looks when you both make or repeat sexual slang. Maybe you "both" need to be warned, because you are discouraging anyone with decency. The reason I left last time was because I was too embarrassed to post on a forum where this sort of smut is allowed.

Get a grip mantra.

I'll get a grip when FD either agrees or disagrees - is that OK Oceans?  :)

Get a grip mantra.

How sweet- a lovers quarrel

I agree, but I'm not sure what stance to take on sexual inuendos. No doubt I will have to come up with some kind of policy eventually. If it bothers you, bring it up in feedback so we can see how other members feel about it.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2008 at 11:05am:

I agree, but I'm not sure what stance to take on sexual inuendos. No doubt I will have to come up with some kind of policy eventually. If it bothers you, bring it up in feedback so we can see how other members feel about it.

I think if we censor too strictly in this area we are going a bit too far perhaps..Obviously some stuff is a bit over the top and is offensive, but I see a pattern happening in here lately.

We have one or two quite offensive pple who overdo the sexual and racial stuff and by defintion we are all going to pay for their excesses??

If your not careful by going too far the other way...you will find it too restrictive for a lot..I like a bit of banter and engage myself occasionally..for a bit of fun..But Unless its bad comments against children or just plain "OFF" in a sickening graphical sense..I think leave it as it is and remove offending post as they occur..

Over moderation is a killer, as we can presently see in Cracker.We are all adults...not children..

Quote:

I think if we censor too strictly in this area we are going a bit too far perhaps

Sounds like something I said on Cracker yesterday.  

Do what you have to do Oceans.  If you want this forum to run your way - sort it out with FD.   I was giving my opinion only.  This banter that goes on between you and IQ is low as far as I'm concerned - but maybe other people think it's fine, so don't let me stand in your way.

mantra wrote on Mar 4^th, 2008 at 11:38am:

Quote: I think if we censor too strictly in this area we are going a bit too far perhaps Sounds like something I said on Cracker yesterday.   Do what you have to do Oceans.  If you want this forum to run your way - sort it out with FD.   I was giving my opinion only.  This banter that goes on between you and IQ is low as far as I'm concerned - but maybe other people think it's fine, so don't let me stand in your way.

My way? I was only giving an opinion the same as you ..I didnt realise this was a battle of wills..

I hope your feeling better soon. No offence intended.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/ivanadouche/catfight.jpg

!!

Its obvious your having a bad day mantra..thats ok we all have them. You have spent entire threads argueing with IQ..so Im not sure why you have a problem with me returning fire occasionally..you do it all the time and I have pulled you up on it if you remember.


None of this makes sense to me really. I dont know whats going on with you to be honest..

Im not IQ ,I wont sit in here all day and quibble with you...its a terrible time waster.

I dont know whats going on with you to be honest..

It's always someone else that's the problem isn't it Oceans...

This is where todays flaming and unrest started..

For someone who loves peace and tranqulity this is a very odd approach to the acheivement of same..

You could have said the same to me in private and avioded a flame war..you work in very odd ways ...

Boredom perhaps.?

-----------------------------------




"More filth.  Oceans I know you don't like me saying this - but you encourage IQ.   IQ - you just won't learn either.  Do you have any idea how low this forum looks when you both make or repeat sexual slang.

Maybe you "both" need to be warned, because you are discouraging anyone with decency.

The reason I left last time was because I was too embarrassed to post on a forum where this sort of smut is allowed. "

Yes I could have said it in private - but then it would look as though I was publicly singling IQ out, which I'm always doing, but in some cases there are reasons why he reacts and today I lost my temper.

I don't flame intentionally - but yes I usually bite when IQ throws out the bait.  So OK - I'm guilty as charged as well.   If it's banter everyone wants, can't it at least be kept out of the gutter.  I know you don't use gutter language as a rule Oceans, but when IQ does, you quote it, then requote it etc. and it's just adding fuel to the flames.

If I talk to you about these problems through messages only, no-one else knows what is to be expected and I get accused of being unfair.  We all need to look at what we post objectively and I'm not saying I'm blameless in arguing with IQ.

mantra wrote on Mar 4^th, 2008 at 2:47pm:

Yes I could have said it in private - but then it would look as though I was publicly singling IQ out, which I'm always doing, but in some cases there are reasons why he reacts and today I lost my temper. I don't flame intentionally - but yes I usually bite when IQ throws out the bait.  So OK - I'm guilty as charged as well.   If it's banter everyone wants, can't it at least be kept out of the gutter.  I know you don't use gutter language as a rule Oceans, but when IQ does, you quote it, then requote it etc. and it's just adding fuel to the flames. If I talk to you about these problems through messages only, no-one else knows what is to be expected and I get accused of being unfair.  We all need to look at what we post objectively and I'm not saying I'm blameless in arguing with IQ.

as they say, dont feed the troll.

Does anyone else see the irony in the thread title?

IQSRLOW wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 10:24am:

http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm Send a message to Kevvy- I'm sure he'll apologise on my behalf

Welcome to 4 pages ago

Ban everyone but me.  And that includes freediver for the arbitrary application of alleged rules.

I have seen NIL activity by FD.

Was someone suspended while I was snoozing?

No-one has been banned, yet.

Hate that word, "banned."  "Suspended" is my preferred option.

How about 'presented with alternative options'?

Aussie wrote on Mar 4^th, 2008 at 9:44pm:

I have seen NIL activity by FD. Was someone suspended while I was snoozing?

You might be the first Aussie.  For studiously ignoring people.

By the way have you ever written the name Dick Smith and seen what you get?  This has nothing to do with the topic but freediver's paranoia that someone will utter the word dick has the name of the dude changed to Thingy Smith - how funny is that?

Has anyone noticed that the poster who started all this has disappeared?

I came. I flamed. I've run away. Apologies to Julius Caesar.

;)

FD - by "ban", do you mean indefinitely, permanently or only for a period of time?

I've just been looking into that actually. I thought my only option was to ban someone by deleting their profile. However I can put someone on a 'banned' list and remove them from the list at a later time, leaving their profile, post count etc intact. I have to do this manually. There are mods to set up suspensions for a fixed time period, but I don't think I'll bother trying to install them. I will probably suspend someone for about 1 day the first time then double the time for each suspension after that - 2, 4, 8 days etc. When I get to the stage where I am not reading most of what is posted here I will have to switch to suspending all parties involved in a flame war for a fixed period regardless of how many previous warning they have had.

deepthought wrote on Mar 4^th, 2008 at 10:03pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 4th, 2008 at 9:44pm: I have seen NIL activity by FD. Was someone suspended while I was snoozing? You might be the first Aussie.  For studiously ignoring people. By the way have you ever written the name Dick Smith and seen what you get?  This has nothing to do with the topic but freediver's paranoia that someone will utter the word dick has the name of the dude changed to Thingy Smith - how funny is that?

Yes D i c k is an offensive name.

wrote on Mar 5^th, 2008 at 5:28pm:

deepthought wrote on Mar 4th, 2008 at 10:03pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 4th, 2008 at 9:44pm: I have seen NIL activity by FD. Was someone suspended while I was snoozing? You might be the first Aussie.  For studiously ignoring people. By the way have you ever written the name Dick Smith and seen what you get?  This has nothing to do with the topic but freediver's paranoia that someone will utter the word dick has the name of the dude changed to Thingy Smith - how funny is that? Yes D i c k is an offensive name.

Does Dick Smith know that?

Unintended collateral damage. A non-event, dick thought!

Aussie wrote on Mar 5^th, 2008 at 8:56pm:

Unintended collateral damage. A non-event, dick thought!

No wuckers dick head.

fd I think these few posts should be spliced. It is kinda off the Aboriginals topic. Im in the US so I post in crazy hours . :D

I haven't seen IQ in a few days.  Has he left or has he suspended by a dictator?

deepthought wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 9:30pm:

I haven't seen IQ in a few days.  Has he left or has he suspended by a dictator?

While you were sleeping, your side-kick spammed every Thread on the Forum, and that was preceded with taking FD on with spurious allegations of bias and another one out of left field.

FD has probably disciplined your side-kick.

Did you not see it?

Aussie wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 9:51pm:

deepthought wrote on Apr 4th, 2008 at 9:30pm: I haven't seen IQ in a few days.  Has he left or has he suspended by a dictator? While you were sleeping, your side-kick spammed every Thread on the Forum, and that was preceded with taking FD on with spurious allegations of bias and another one out of left field. FD has probably disciplined your side-kick. Did you not see it?

I don't have a side-kick, I saw some pretty weird allegations by freediver and some calls from IQ for freediver to back his one eyed allegations . . . .

Then nothing.  Do you know what happened Aussie - or have you joined in the baseless allegation game too?

deepthought wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 9:55pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 4th, 2008 at 9:51pm: deepthought wrote on Apr 4th, 2008 at 9:30pm: I haven't seen IQ in a few days.  Has he left or has he suspended by a dictator? While you were sleeping, your side-kick spammed every Thread on the Forum, and that was preceded with taking FD on with spurious allegations of bias and another one out of left field. FD has probably disciplined your side-kick. Did you not see it? I don't have a side-kick, I saw some pretty weird allegations by freediver and some calls from IQ for freediver to back his one eyed allegations . . . . Then nothing.  Do you know what happened Aussie - or have you joined in the baseless allegation game too?

IQ has been suspended [said as much last night on Cracker]..deservedly so..she trashed the forum for little more than disliking the fact that she was called a stalker.

Truth hurts obviously.

oceanz wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 10:04pm:

deepthought wrote on Apr 4th, 2008 at 9:55pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 4th, 2008 at 9:51pm: deepthought wrote on Apr 4th, 2008 at 9:30pm: I haven't seen IQ in a few days.  Has he left or has he suspended by a dictator? While you were sleeping, your side-kick spammed every Thread on the Forum, and that was preceded with taking FD on with spurious allegations of bias and another one out of left field. FD has probably disciplined your side-kick. Did you not see it? I don't have a side-kick, I saw some pretty weird allegations by freediver and some calls from IQ for freediver to back his one eyed allegations . . . . Then nothing.  Do you know what happened Aussie - or have you joined in the baseless allegation game too? IQ has been suspended [said as much last night on Cracker]..deservedly so..she trashed the forum for little more than disliking the fact that she was called a stalker. She is as everyone knows..she doesnt like the truth?   TOO bad!!!!

Really?  How long for?  And why is freediver scared to admit it?  Why does it take others to break the news about the forum to the forum?

Thanks Oceans.

Im not saying its certain, but she didnt  deny it last night on cracker when Amadd and I were talking about it..so I take that to mean she was.


Freedever respects the privacy of every member of his forum, even the idiots.

He would no more discuss your business or mine to the wider community.

He is a gentleman.

Deepthought, please contact IQ directly if you want to know what he is up to. You should know how to get in touch, and I will pass on a message to you if he emails me.

I will not discuss any member's status publicly, even if just to announce they are away on holidays or something. Furthermore, I think it is wrong to publicly criticise a person on a forum where they are not able to defend themselves. I have had it done to me and I am not keen to do it to someone else. I ask all members to show the same decency towards any person they think has been banned from OzPolitic.

I realise this puts me in a difficult position, but I am compelled to put member's privacy and 'right of reply' first.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 10:15pm:

Deepthought, please contact IQ directly if you want to know what he is up to. You should know how to get in touch, and I will pass on a message to you if he emails me. I will not discuss any member's status publicly, even if just to announce they are away on holidays or something. Furthermore, I think it is wrong to publicly criticise a person on a forum where they are not able to defend themselves. I have had it done to me and I am not keen to do it to someone else. I ask all members to show the same decency towards any person they think has been banned from OzPolitic. I realise this puts me in a difficult position, but I am compelled to put member's privacy and 'right of reply' first.

I told you once before when you told me to contact him direct that I have no way of doing that.  How can I contact IQ if you have suspended him?

I don't want to know his business, I want to know forum business.

Has IQ been suspended from the forum.  If so what for and for how long?

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 10:15pm:

Deepthought, please contact IQ directly if you want to know what he is up to. You should know how to get in touch, and I will pass on a message to you if he emails me. I will not discuss any member's status publicly, even if just to announce they are away on holidays or something. Furthermore, I think it is wrong to publicly criticise a person on a forum where they are not able to defend themselves. I have had it done to me and I am not keen to do it to someone else. I ask all members to show the same decency towards any person they think has been banned from OzPolitic. I realise this puts me in a difficult position, but I am compelled to put member's privacy and 'right of reply' first.

If you can't let the board members know a member's 'status' then I have to assume you are hiding something.

I suspend myself in protest at your arbitrary suspension of a member after you flamed them and they responded.

I have said it before freediver - while you suspend (or threaten to suspend) people who respond to flamers (as you did with Oceans and IQ before) you threaten the forum with extinction while you encourage flaming.  And you are the worst flamer of all as you occupy the sole position of power.

Oceans I'm surprised you are so excited at this flagrant abuse of admin authority - you suffered it before yet don't defend a forum buddy.

Quote:

Oceans I'm surprised you are so excited at this flagrant abuse of admin authority - you suffered it before yet don't defend a forum buddy.

Iq is no buddy of mine DT [and I reserve my 'excitement' for much more worthwhile pursuits ]..If you cross her you will find she doesnt know the meaning of the word 'buddy'...so dont.

You might believe in freedom but I also believe in justice..the same thing.

If you can't let the board members know a member's 'status' then I have to assume you are hiding something.

Correct. I am hiding the members status.

If you and iq were at all close..you would have swapped email addresses by now anyway so you would have 'outside of the forum' contact .

deepthought wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 9:55pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 4th, 2008 at 9:51pm: deepthought wrote on Apr 4th, 2008 at 9:30pm: I haven't seen IQ in a few days.  Has he left or has he suspended by a dictator? While you were sleeping, your side-kick spammed every Thread on the Forum, and that was preceded with taking FD on with spurious allegations of bias and another one out of left field. FD has probably disciplined your side-kick. Did you not see it? I don't have a side-kick, I saw some pretty weird allegations by freediver and some calls from IQ for freediver to back his one eyed allegations . . . . Then nothing.  Do you know what happened Aussie - or have you joined in the baseless allegation game too?

Yes, I saw what happened, and I was very surprised that FD took as much as he did for as long as he did, without action.

I think it was the cyclist who posted the most relevant description....."If you bite the hand which feeds you, you will end up licking the boots of the bloke who kicks you."

This ain't PA, DT..................this is FD's dung hill.

I saw it too,,,(long time reader, first time poster)

I thouggt freediver was to harsh considering the supurious allegation as deepthought has said

Murigitroid wrote on Apr 5^th, 2008 at 5:30pm:

I saw it too,,,(long time reader, first time poster) I thouggt freediver was to harsh considering the supurious allegation as deepthought has said

Yes suurree IQ    ::)

I have seen you accuse so many other posters of being someone else,,,please don't start your same warped sense of reality with me please maybe freediver would prefer that you drove posters off this site

"long time reader, first time poster"


This is how you always renter after a banning...but go ahead, dont let me stop your ridiculous charade...

could someone delete my account please
i refuse to partisipate in a forum full of idiots

Murigitroid wrote on Apr 5^th, 2008 at 7:44pm:

I have seen you accuse so many other posters of being someone else,,,please don't start your same warped sense of reality with me please maybe freediver would prefer that you drove posters off this site

Wanker:


Quote:

(long time reader, first time poster)

I also notice that you seem inconsistent with your spelling, parsing and grammar.  Two posts full of flaws ands one looking very much like IQ....

This one.....


Quote:

I have seen you accuse so many other posters of being someone else,,,please don't start your same warped sense of reality with me please maybe freediver would prefer that you drove posters off this site

............with some camouflage.

i.e.  
Quote:

I thouggt freediver was to harsh considering the supurious allegation as deepthought has said

And, i.e.
Quote:

could someone delete my account please i refuse to partisipate in a forum full of idiots

haha another schizoid

its easy to see why this forum is so popular
full od dickheads and a mod that bans anyone who disagees with the dickheads

Yes has a definite familiarity I agree.

Yes Aussie ............with some camouflage.

But not enough.

Aussie wrote on Apr 5^th, 2008 at 8:57pm:

Murigitroid wrote on Apr 5th, 2008 at 7:44pm: I have seen you accuse so many other posters of being someone else,,,please don't start your same warped sense of reality with me please maybe freediver would prefer that you drove posters off this site Wanker: Quote: (long time reader, first time poster) I also notice that you seem inconsistent with your spelling, parsing and grammar.  Two posts full of flaws ands one looking very much like IQ.... This one..... [quote]I have seen you accuse so many other posters of being someone else,,,please don't start your same warped sense of reality with me please maybe freediver would prefer that you drove posters off this site

............with some camouflage.

i.e.  
Quote:

I thouggt freediver was to harsh considering the supurious allegation as deepthought has said

And, i.e.
Quote:

could someone delete my account please i refuse to partisipate in a forum full of idiots

[/quote]

Compared with:


Quote:

I have seen you accuse so many other posters of being someone else,,,please don't start your same warped sense of reality with me please maybe freediver would prefer that you drove posters off this site

Murigitroid wrote on Apr 5^th, 2008 at 9:28pm:

haha another schizoid its easy to see why this forum is so popular full od dickheads and a mod that bans anyone who disagees with the dickheads

Yep, it is IQ.

Hey, IQ, while you are here, send a PM to DT......he misses you and wishes communication.

think what u like aussie

just shows what you are like

Aussie wrote on Apr 5^th, 2008 at 9:36pm:

Murigitroid wrote on Apr 5th, 2008 at 9:28pm: haha another schizoid its easy to see why this forum is so popular full od dickheads and a mod that bans anyone who disagees with the dickheads Yep, it is IQ. Hey, IQ, while you are here, send a PM to DT......he misses you and wishes communication.

What a relief, someone else who can pick this virus.

i am just waiting for freediver to delet my account,,,in the meantime i might as well abuse the bugger out of you2 beacause you havent got a clue

freediver- your forum sucks and is filled with paranoid diuckheads goodluck attracting anyone in here with any sense enjoy your less than mediocrity

ploitivcal party? what a larf

Delete yourself, but not posting.

How about that for an idea.

oceanz wrote on Apr 5^th, 2008 at 9:40pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2008 at 9:36pm: Murigitroid wrote on Apr 5th, 2008 at 9:28pm: haha another schizoid its easy to see why this forum is so popular full od dickheads and a mod that bans anyone who disagees with the dickheads Yep, it is IQ. Hey, IQ, while you are here, send a PM to DT......he misses you and wishes communication. What a relief, someone else who can pick this virus.

from what i hear youd konw all about viruses

Aussie wrote on Apr 5^th, 2008 at 9:53pm:

Delete yourself, but not posting. How about that for an idea.

KMA,,,how about that buggerface?

oceanz - would Murigitroid have relied had you not posted him/her ?

As per usual, you are entirely complicit, if not encouraging.

Aussie wrote on Apr 5^th, 2008 at 9:53pm:

Delete yourself, but not posting. How about that for an idea.

I'll try again.......('cause I stuffed up.....)

Delete yourself, Murig/IQ, by not posting.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2008 at 10:03am:

If you can't let the board members know a member's 'status' then I have to assume you are hiding something. Correct. I am hiding the members status.

My 24 hour self-suspension is up and it is established only that the member has a 'status'.

Meanwhile two mushrooms furiously flame the member with a mystery 'status' who may or may not be the new member 'murigitroid'.  

So this is the best way to deal with the forum business?  Let the mushrooms speculate by driving off any new member who they believe to be a reincarnation of IQ because no one (but the forum dictator) knows the truth and he's not sharing?

It's your forum and you wreck it any way you see fit mate.  I strongly disagree with your secrecy but this is possibly one reason why you can not create an attractive community here.

Oceans I rarely communicate via PM with any one from any forum, and virtually never communicate via email with anyone from forums, I have no interest in giving anyone my email address, nor having theirs.  IQ and I are not 'close' any more than you and I are.  

I am not supporting IQ specifically, I am supporting the same freedom to respond to flaming that I supported you both in before.  

I am surprised you were upset by your own suspension earlier but not IQs.  That is not a true belief in the rights of all to have what you expect for yourself.  It is only self interest.

I believe in equal rights for all.  Anyone who believes in universal rights believes in them for everyone irrespective of their opinion of the person.

freediver, what is the situation regarding suspensions or bannings of members?  Has any member been suspended or banned in the last week?  What is that member's (who shall not be named) 'status'?  When will that nameless member return?

And will the two flamers who combined their forces to mercilessly and shamefully attack a 'new member' also be treated the same as every other member without regard to their politics?  Will they too be suspended?

I'm sure you are not oblivious to the fact that your willingness to spearhead the flaming of members, your arbitrary treatment of members and your determination to keep the mushrooms in the dark is not conducive to increasing membership of your forum.

You should get yourself a free web-based email account so you don't have to worry about giving it out. I recommend gmail. You can even get it to forward emails to your usual account. You can have an ozpolitic email account if you want. It's the same as gmail, just a different address.

That way you could take your struggle for online freedom to a whole new level by communicating with the banned.

Quote:

I believe in equal rights for all.  Anyone who believes in universal rights believes in them for everyone irrespective of their opinion of the person.

You are not talking about equal rights DT.  You are suggesting that because one person has the right to say whatever he/she wants - a dozen others are restricted from having the same freedom.

This isn't how a society works.  If the same behaviour was translated into verbal or physical violence in the real world, that person would be locked up for the safety of others, or rejected by mainstream society.

You have to draw the line somewhere.  If you had an aviary full of birds and they all got on well, apart from one, who consistently pecked violently at any of the others who came near him/her - would you get rid of all the other birds and keep the pesky one, because that bird had the right to live in the aviary?

mantra wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 12:01pm:

Quote: I believe in equal rights for all.  Anyone who believes in universal rights believes in them for everyone irrespective of their opinion of the person. You are not talking about equal rights DT.  You are suggesting that because one person has the right to say whatever he/she wants - a dozen others are restricted from having the same freedom. This isn't how a society works.  If the same behaviour was translated into verbal or physical violence in the real world, that person would be locked up for the safety of others, or rejected by mainstream society. You have to draw the line somewhere.  If you had an aviary full of birds and they all got on well, apart from one, who consistently pecked violently at any of the others who came near him/her - would you get rid of all the other birds and keep the pesky one, because that bird had the right to live in the aviary?

It'll be interesting to see how DT can relate this to the Labor party.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 9:06am:

You should get yourself a free web-based email account so you don't have to worry about giving it out. I recommend gmail. You can even get it to forward emails to your usual account. You can have an ozpolitic email account if you want. It's the same as gmail, just a different address. That way you could take your struggle for online freedom to a whole new level by communicating with the banned.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 12:36pm:

It'll be interesting to see how DT can relate this to the Labor party.

Your baiting and flaming, though irrelevant, is noteworthy.



mantra wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 12:01pm:

Quote: I believe in equal rights for all.  Anyone who believes in universal rights believes in them for everyone irrespective of their opinion of the person. You are not talking about equal rights DT.  You are suggesting that because one person has the right to say whatever he/she wants - a dozen others are restricted from having the same freedom. This isn't how a society works.  If the same behaviour was translated into verbal or physical violence in the real world, that person would be locked up for the safety of others, or rejected by mainstream society. You have to draw the line somewhere.  If you had an aviary full of birds and they all got on well, apart from one, who consistently pecked violently at any of the others who came near him/her - would you get rid of all the other birds and keep the pesky one, because that bird had the right to live in the aviary?

Society is not an artificial creation similar to an aviary.  The birds in an aviary are not free, they are under the total control of an absolute ruler, and their ultimate survival is subject to arbitrary whim.

Would you have a society 'working' like that if you believe that freedom of expression is 'not how society works'?  It may be a paradisical society for you, where you decide who lives or dies but it is not one that most liberal thinkers would wish to live in.  Tyranny never works, this forum's inability to retain long term members is evidence of that.

When I say equal rights I mean exactly that - I don't need you to reinterpret that statement for me.  Your solution is the one which silences people.  It is not my solution or my belief.  

Neither IQ, nor Oceans, nor Aussie, nor me, has the power to silence anyone on this forum.  Only freediver has that - and his arbitrary and flagrant abuse of that power is the problem that creates this situation. Repeatedly.

His beligerent and patronising responses here to my genuine feedback undoubtedly warns prospective members of their fate if they contradict him.  But you probably don't even see it as this is like the society you wish for where the caged bird gets annihilated if it doesn't behave according to some unstated, arbitrary and inequitable standard.

I think you are getting too hung up on this "freedom" thing DT.

We live in a 'free 'country [ as free as your going to get anyway]-you are free to come and go in here as you please.

There is no such thing as complete freedom ever..our whole society is based on rules and restrictions. It has to be that way..Nowhere in society do any of us living in  complete freedom.

Society is  based on hierarcharcial principals. Since we cannot change the status quo we must live and work within them [ the rules /laws].
What makes you think it is any different in a forum, any forum?

Your pal has been banned/or not  [of which you consider an honourable state of being..perpetually banned]  not for upholding any noble principle or cause, but simply because it can and chooses to  bully and intimidate when he/she doesnt get her/his own way. Banned from every forum within cooee of this one..and you are working on the same record according to "your own personal stalker"

Thats not a society I would be happy living in DT..
If your so hung up on freedom why dont you fight for the oppressed and downtrodden in countries where there is a need for "freedom fighters". There would be some real challenges for you there.

But somehow I  dont really think you are interested in freedom are you, just whinging for whingings sake.

And yes your right DT, I dont give  rats about IQs banning..
self interest..dead right. If IQ practiced a little more of same that would be a good thing.

Why would I embrace and "fight" for someone who degrades and stalks me?

Give me a break. >:(

oceanz wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 3:42pm:

I think you are getting too hung up on this "freedom" thing DT. We live in a 'free 'country [ as free as your going to get anyway]-you are free to come and go in here as you please. There is no such thing as complete freedom ever..our whole society is based on rules and restrictions. It has to be that way..Nowhere in society do any of us living in  complete freedom. Society is  based on hierarcharcial principals. Since we cannot change the status quo we must live and work within them [ the rules /laws]. What makes you think it is any different in a forum, any forum? Your pal has been banned/or not  [of which you consider an honourable state of being..perpetually banned]  not for upholding any noble principle or cause, but simply because it can and chooses to  bully and intimidate when he/she doesnt get her/his own way. Banned from every forum within cooee of this one..and you are working on the same record according to "your own personal stalker" Thats not a society I would be happy living in DT.. If your so hung up on freedom why dont you fight for the oppressed and downtrodden in countries where there is a need for "freedom fighters". There would be some real challenges for you there. But somehow I  dont really think you are interested in freedom are you, just whinging for whingings sake. And yes your right DT, I dont give  rats about IQs banning.. self interest..dead right. If IQ practiced a little more of same that would be a good thing. Why would I embrace and "fight" for someone who degrades and stalks me? Give me a break. >:(

Perhaps you are right Oceans.  Perhaps I am hung up on freedom and should not expect it here. Perhaps an online discussion community is not the goal at all.  Perhaps this forum is determined to be driven by self interest

Mantra doesn't want the word 'fart' mentioned so she will delete any reference to the horrid word, you don't want anyone to post stuff you disagree with or you will insult them until they respond and then rejoice in their banning, freediver doesn't want anyone to oppose him or he will ban them . . . .

Remember this though


Quote:

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Don't get hung up on freedom Oceans - they haven't come for you yet.

I am a Liberal, I live by Liberal values and freedom is embodied in those values.

Quote:

Perhaps I am hung up on freedom and should not expect it here.

Of course, you shouldn't.  This is FD's Forum, nothing like PA which 'belongs' to no-one in particular, and where there is almost nil moderation these days.

It's like your lounge room, DT.  If I'm there, having been invited by you, I have no freedom to p.iss on the carpet, or to throw cat poo at your TV.

DT says.........


"Perhaps you are right Oceans.  Perhaps I am hung up on freedom and should not expect it here. Perhaps an online discussion community is not the goal at all.  Perhaps this forum is determined to be driven by self interest "

everyone and eveything is driven by self interest to some degree DT..its only natural, its the way of the world. YOU are driven by self interest too.-

Also pardon me for saying so but you never saw the whole fiasco the other day and the reason for the supposed banning [I mean..maybe shes on hols]?  So how can you say I baited and flamed and rejoiced in any outcome ?. But  thats exactly what she did to me..she came into the Rel Forum and abused me on the pornography thread and in an act of outright b..ch regenerated my thread and then proceeded to tell me to f..k off I when I tried to post..even tho her objective was to inflame, undermine and humiliate me..you willingly helped her in her quest and you knew what was going on, so did Sprint, he helped too.., so dont tell me Im imagining it..she was not only trying to nark me but create very negative conditons within the forum as a whole. This is a community.. a virus spreads very quickly... Your a nice enough guy DT..but you really are wasting your time trying to drum up sympathy for this twat..we all know her a lot better than you..she has caused so much trouble for so long, noone has an ounce of sympathy for her and what she repeatedly brings upon herself.

There are a lot of nice pple in here DT..if it makes you feel more at home I can be a rightie and hang off your coat tails and abuse all who come within spitting distance of you..I can roll my  eyes and regurgitate everything you say to make me look smarter..lets face it, thats what she did. Your egocentric personality didnt see she was trying to be just  like you..or is that the attraction here..?? Try being a little more open minded..just because some of us are somewhere left of right doesnt mean we are all idiots. Im a bit of both actually. Open your mind to the possibilities and let it go.

Aussie wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 4:34pm:

Quote: Perhaps I am hung up on freedom and should not expect it here. Of course, you shouldn't.  This is FD's Forum, nothing like PA which 'belongs' to no-one in particular, and where there is almost nil moderation these days. It's like your lounge room, DT.  If I'm there, having been invited by you, I have no freedom to p.iss on the carpet, or to throw cat poo at your TV.

No Aussie, you don't.  But no one does.  It is not a luxury reserved for some, as seems to be the case here with the arbitrary application of non-existent rules.

Nor will you expect that if someone baits you and you respond that you will pay the price while the antagonist gets to do it again, and again, as is the case here.

In the recent flaming and abuse (including the links freediver himself posted) IQ was not alone.  In fact IQ was often responding to flaming by a number of people, including freediver himself.

While he drew attention to IQ he completely ignored this by Oceans:


Quote:

Listen donut puncher when I want your advice Ill yank your chain.

So not only did he arbitrarily single out IQ for insulting behaviour while ignoring Oceans equally sexually explicit posts, he called IQ a liar and refused to retract any of his defamatory posts.  If you want a forum to act in a fair manner it behoves the administrator to act fairly.  He does not.

To silence IQ for doing the same as he is doing is the ultimate hypocrisy.   It shows his leftard political leaning though to keep the mushrooms in the dark and silence their dissent with devastating finality.

oceanz wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 5:49pm:

DT says......... "Perhaps you are right Oceans.  Perhaps I am hung up on freedom and should not expect it here. Perhaps an online discussion community is not the goal at all.  Perhaps this forum is determined to be driven by self interest " everyone and eveything is driven by self interest to some degree DT..its only natural, its the way of the world. YOU are driven by self interest too.- Also pardon me for saying so but you never saw the whole fiasco the other day and the reason for the supposed banning [I mean..maybe shes on hols]?  So how can you say I baited and flamed and rejoiced in any outcome ?. But  thats exactly what she did to me..she came into the Rel Forum and abused me on the pornography thread and in an act of outright b..ch regenerated my thread and then proceeded to tell me to f..k off I when I tried to post..even tho her objective was to inflame, undermine and humiliate me..you willingly helped her in her quest and you knew what was going on, so did Sprint, he helped too.., so dont tell me Im imagining it..she was not only trying to nark me but create very negative conditons within the forum as a whole. This is a community.. a virus spreads very quickly... Your a nice enough guy DT..but you really are wasting your time trying to drum up sympathy for this twat..we all know her a lot better than you..she has caused so much trouble for so long, noone has an ounce of sympathy for her and what she repeatedly brings upon herself. There are a lot of nice pple in here DT..if it makes you feel more at home I can be a rightie and hang off your coat tails and abuse all who come within spitting distance of you..I can roll my  eyes and regurgitate everything you say to make me look smarter..lets face it, thats what she did. Your egocentric personality didnt see she was trying to be just  like you..or is that the attraction here..?? Try being a little more open minded..just because some of us are somewhere left of right doesnt mean we are all idiots. Im a bit of both actually. Open your mind to the possibilities and let it go.

I don't care what anyone's political leaning is Oceans.

I merely defend everyone equally.  Perhaps you did not notice I suspended myself when you and IQ were suspended and argued for your re-instatement as well, not just IQs.  And you are the worst of the serial abusers on the forum.  

And if I was acting in self interest I would not now be arguing this case, nor yours before.  I have not been suspended.  

As a Liberal I believe in fair play for all, irrespective of their opinions or personality.

Quote:

His beligerent and patronising responses here to my genuine feedback undoubtedly warns prospective members of their fate if they contradict him.  But you probably don't even see it as this is like the society you wish for where the caged bird gets annihilated if it doesn't behave according to some unstated, arbitrary and inequitable standard.

Deepthought - it's difficult to understand how you form judgements on various people, which are usually far removed from the truth.

As far as annihilating a disruptive bird, it is a thought my compassionate nature would never consider and I have always rehomed any dysfunctional creature in a more appropriate place.

I have always rehomed any dysfunctional creature in a more appropriate place.

That's a great euphemism. Do you mind if I borrow it?

Haha - of course not.  But it wasn't a euphemism, although it may have sounded like one.

Freedom & Responsibility


Freedom, from an existential perspective, cannot be separated from responsibilty. With freedom comes responsibility. Yet, it is common for many people to seek freedom while trying to avoid responsibility. While, at times, it appears that people may be able to succeed at this, there remains a psychological consequence. This consequence is often not very noticeable, but may find expression through guilt, anxiety, depression, or even anger.



Existential freedom is not the same things as freedom in the political sense we often think of it in America. In fact, political freedom could be view to be a rather shallow, though not unimportant, type of freedom. A person can be existentially free despite not being politically free, and a person can avoid embracing their existential freedom despite being offered great political freedoms.



Frankl (1984), in the story of his experience in the concentration camps, provides a powerful overview of this distinction. While all his political or social freedoms were taken away, he gives credit for his survival to his psychological freedom. This psychological freedom allowed him to find and embrace meaning in the midst of what appeared to be meaningless suffering"


http://www.existential-therapy.com/Special_Topics/Freedom_and_Responsibility.htm

mantra wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 6:28pm:

Quote: His beligerent and patronising responses here to my genuine feedback undoubtedly warns prospective members of their fate if they contradict him.  But you probably don't even see it as this is like the society you wish for where the caged bird gets annihilated if it doesn't behave according to some unstated, arbitrary and inequitable standard. Deepthought - it's difficult to understand how you form judgements on various people, which are usually far removed from the truth. As far as annihilating a disruptive bird, it is a thought my compassionate nature would never consider and I have always rehomed any dysfunctional creature in a more appropriate place.

How does one read this sarcasm?


Quote:

That way you could take your struggle for online freedom to a whole new level by communicating with the banned.

Or this irrelevancy?


Quote:

It'll be interesting to see how DT can relate this to the Labor party.

Or this libel?


Quote:

Don't lie to me IQ.

Or this defamation?


Quote:

Please don't make up statistics and post them here

These are antagonistic, beligerent or patronising comments.  They are all made by freediver.  Are they friendly?  Are they in the spirit of intelligent debate or encouraging of articulate exchanges of information?

Or are they abusive and patronising - an exploitative abuse of power through insult and baiting?

And it was you who implied you would 'get rid' of disruptive 'birds'.  However you choose to justify it to yourself your plan is to remove them from your sight.  It follows that you feel the same about anyone or anything which does not fit your definition of 'functional'.  

I take no such supreme position for myself on internet forums.  Everyone's view is valid - even the 'dysfunctional'.  I will form no such judgements, I will disagree with an opinion, but I will never seek to silence.

But if you genuinely believe freediver's arrogance is creating a great forum then keep on believing.  I see no evidence of it though.

Quote:

It is not a luxury reserved for some, as seems to be the case here with the arbitrary application of non-existent rules.

You said you did not see what happened.  So, you really ought shut yer gob.

I did, I was here/there at the time.

IQ was piss.ing on FD's carpet and throwing cat poo at FD's TV.

In fact, DT, FD did nothing until IQ trashed the place with a spam on EVERY Board.


Is that the 'freedom' you speak of?

Aussie wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 7:59pm:

Quote: It is not a luxury reserved for some, as seems to be the case here with the arbitrary application of non-existent rules. You said you did not see what happened.  So, you really ought shut yer gob. I did, I was here/there at the time. IQ was piss.ing on FD's carpet and throwing cat poo at FD's TV. In fact, DT, FD did nothing until IQ trashed the place with a spam on EVERY Board. Is that the 'freedom' you speak of?

OK, let's see the spam on every board then, so I may judge for myself.  Links if you would.



All I saw was deliberate flaming by freediver to get a response as he does frequently.  While managing not to see Oceans complicity, background hysteria and insult.

In my opinion Oceans is far worse - in that particular thread for example IQ pleaded for sanity more than once while Oceans repeatedly posted slurs, insult and silly pictures.

This was IQ


Quote:

Freediver- please delete this off topic sh!t

and . . .


Quote:

Back to the subject... If someone posts a face pic on the internet and it is used for gratification (in any way, such as spitting on it, wiping your @rse etc) ...is it cheating? ...is it moral?

It was freediver who incited it with


Quote:

Oceans - quit insulting people IQ - quit stalking

IQ was posting in a thread he started and attempting to get it back on track.  Oceans was posting silly pictures.   freediver baited him further with allegations of sexual impropriety and lying.  He did not provide any valid proof - just baited further.

duplicate

deepthought wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 8:27pm:

duplicate

are you drunk?

Quote:

OK, let's see the spam on every board then, so I may judge for myself.  Links if you would.

Are you serious?  Do you really not think they have been long ago deleted?

The specific Thread in which IQ outrageously defamed FD is also gone.

As it ought.

Shut yer ignorant gob, DT.

I saw it all, and, let's me tells ya, FD was far more tolerant than Animal Mother could even contemplate, AND over many hours.

Aussie wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 9:00pm:

Quote: OK, let's see the spam on every board then, so I may judge for myself.  Links if you would. Are you serious?  Do you really not think they have been long ago deleted? The specific Thread in which IQ outrageously defamed FD is also gone. As it ought. Shut yer ignorant gob, DT. I saw it all, and, let's me tells ya, FD was far more tolerant than Animal Mother could even contemplate, AND over many hours.

As far as I am aware nothing has been removed.  freediver will confirm or deny that.  The thread in question is untouched and starts here.

The links if you would.  freediver displayed no tolerance at all as you will see - he incited it with his claim that IQ was stalking (when he was actually in the thread he started) and if anyone was it was Oceans with stupid pictures and silly comments, he furthered it with accusations of 'sexual assault' and then accused IQ of lying.

It was entirely orchestrated by freediver and he knows it or he would have provided the evidence of his spurious allegations then.  He did not.  Instead he banned IQ and kept it a secret in a disgraceful display of untrammelled power.

I had to delete a large number of posts and threads.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 9:51pm:

I had to delete a large number of posts and threads.

While the initial one remains there I find that hard to believe.  Why those and not the one where you goaded IQ to react?

No doubt you will tell us what all those large number of threads and posts said?

No.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 9:56pm:

No.

I expected no less.  You're lying aren't you.

No, he's not.

Fact.

everyone in here will tell you hes not lying. He doesnt ,however have to answer to you.

Her nasty stuff has been deleted. Lucky for her.

I hope all of us just ignore your continual badgering on this stupid topic.

Aussie wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 10:09pm:

No, he's not. Fact.

If he wasn't lying he would have no problem either producing a few of the posts or telling us what was in them.  Why leave some and not others?  You can see the thread where freediver goaded IQ, why leave that and selectively delete others?

It's a lie for sure Aussie.

So we are ALL lying to you DT? Is that what your saying?

Freediver doesnt have to answer to you

Your not doing IQ any favours with this crap.

oceanz wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 10:17pm:

So we are ALL lying to you DT? Is that what your saying?

Who is all?  

So when does this suspension end?  When is IQ back?

Poor Deepthought.  :D

The world is full of lies and liers. LOL

Sappho wrote on Apr 7^th, 2008 at 9:32pm:

Poor Deepthought.  :D The world is full of lies and liers. LOL

Oh hello Sappho, my turn to be stalked tonight?  Your other regulars get a night off?

psssstttt, it's spelled 'liars'. As you are one mate you should know to spell it or you look dumb as well.

News on IQ freediver?  When is his return?

IQ is in Cracker DT..shes flaming her arse of with Sprint and amadd...

oceanz wrote on Apr 9^th, 2008 at 10:43am:

IQ is in Cracker DT..shes flaming her arse of with Sprint and amadd...

What's the URL?

Here's one for you:

http://cracker.com.au/viewthread.aspx?threadid=230756&categoryid=11121

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2008 at 5:46pm:

Here's one for you: http://cracker.com.au/viewthread.aspx?threadid=230756&categoryid=11121

I'm gonna join up.  Thanks.

You were there ages ago, Donald Trump!

8-)

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2008 at 5:46pm:

Here's one for you: http://cracker.com.au/viewthread.aspx?threadid=230756&categoryid=11121

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Sunk on two counts DT!

Aussie wrote on Apr 9^th, 2008 at 6:38pm:

You were there ages ago, Donald Trump! 8-)

Huh?  Donald Trump is a member here.  Is he there too.  I have just joined up and posted after IQ.

Did you get an answer from IQ?

Aussie wrote on Apr 9^th, 2008 at 6:49pm:

Did you get an answer from IQ?

I only just posted dude.

I dont think DT is Donald Trump..his posting style is way too controlled.

DT you will get an answer from IQ later, she goes in there in the evening.

oceanz wrote on Apr 9^th, 2008 at 6:55pm:

I dont think DT is Donald Trump..his posting style is way too controlled. DT you will get an answer from IQ later, she goes in there in the evening.

Thanks.

I am deepthought everywhere.  I don't post under other names except at PA where sock puppets were mandatory - but even then I always used the same avatar to give the game away.

deepthought wrote on Apr 9^th, 2008 at 6:57pm:

[quote author=oceansblue link=1204244160/195#206 date=1207731341]I dont think DT is Donald Trump..his posting style is way too controlled. DT you will get an answer from IQ later, she goes in there in the evening. [/quote Thanks. I am deepthought everywhere.  I don't post under other names except at PA where sock puppets were mandatory -

Rubbish.

You and I know exactly where you posted under other names.

But, I concede I might be wrong confusing Donald Trump with deepthought.

Aussie wrote on Apr 9^th, 2008 at 7:17pm:

deepthought wrote on Apr 9th, 2008 at 6:57pm: [quote author=oceansblue link=1204244160/195#206 date=1207731341]I dont think DT is Donald Trump..his posting style is way too controlled. DT you will get an answer from IQ later, she goes in there in the evening. [/quote Thanks. I am deepthought everywhere.  I don't post under other names except at PA where sock puppets were mandatory - Rubbish. You and I know exactly where you posted under other names. But, I concede I might be wrong confusing Donald Trump with deepthought.

Be so kind as to tell me then.

I am unaware of it.

Yes, you are.  

You have probably forgotten.

But, I will not breach the trust you then afforded me.

Aussie wrote on Apr 9^th, 2008 at 8:11pm:

Yes, you are.   You have probably forgotten. But, I will not breach the trust you then afforded me.

Don't bullplop me Aussie - you and I don't communicate as I don't communicate with anyone offsite - it is not my style.  You have PMed me as others do but I rarely respond.  If I can't say it in the open I don't say it.  I am not that dishonourable.

It seems freediver has also been perpetuating myths about communication.  Though I am also not in the habit of communicating between forums, freediver gives me no choice as he won't disclose this forum's business, preferring to be underhanded and secretive.

freediver suggested I contact IQ to find out what happened to IQ.  It seems that even IQ does not know what happened to him.  He suddenly could not log in.  Is this how you treat long standing members freediver?  Flame them until they react then delete their accounts because you don't like what they are saying?

You should be ashamed of yourself.  Why is it you have not spotted the fact you are the worst enemy your own site has?

I'm taking a break to see if you wise up to yourself and reinstate IQ.  Anyone who believes in freedom and fair play should follow my leadership.  I don't expect that to happen though . . . .

Look DT - you are a good poster and this forum will be the less if you don't post here.  

Quote:

I'm taking a break to see if you wise up to yourself and reinstate Lowiq.  Anyone who believes in freedom and fair play should follow my leadership.  I don't expect that to happen though . . . .

Hey Im not saying FD is perfect..but you ll have a hard time whipping up sympathy for your cause DT.

Noone cares.



Quote:

I'm taking a break to see if you wise up to yourself and reinstate lowiq....

So now your trying to threaten /blackmail the owner by" kind of" boycotting and encouraging others to follow you.?

Was sappho right about you?

And this seems to lack conviction too-"taking a break.."



If you get banned from Cracker or any other forum..no explanation..your just banned. IQ is used to being banned.

D&R  have just kicked her out too.

She's a troublemaker.


Maybe you could set up your own forum DT?


Your presence is only a small part of a whole in here...You are no more or less valueable than anyone else.





[freedomisoverrated]

Dt - I'll miss you also.

Take care

I think its pretty poor FD..that the regulars are not in here supporting this forum.

Not a reference to the girls

Don't worry about it Oceans.

Hey dudes, with the censorship issue creating havoc I thought I would start a forum for those who want to discuss stuff in an atmosphere of freedom.

http://deepthought.mybb3.org/index.php

Give it a shot - register today.

An atmosphere of freedom sounds scary deepthought.  I hope you find plenty of brave people to register.

Will IQ be the assistant administrator?

Looks good Deepthought. Would you like to set up reciprocal links?

mantra wrote on Apr 12^th, 2008 at 10:14am:

An atmosphere of freedom sounds scary deepthought.  I hope you find plenty of brave people to register. Will IQ be the assistant administrator?

Freedom is only scary if you are afraid of freedom.  It doesn't require bravery, only a love of your fellow human beings, with all their foibles.  But then I am a Liberal and that is par for the course.

No one will be assistant administrator.  Not even deepthought.    :'(


freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2008 at 10:34am:

Looks good Deepthought. Would you like to set up reciprocal links?

Thanks and done

http://deepthought.mybb3.org/viewtopic.php?p=25#p25

Thanks Deepthought. Did they give you any static pages, so you could set up something like this:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/webring/webring.html

If no-one is administrating, who will delete all the spam?

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2008 at 6:35pm:

Thanks Deepthought. Did they give you any static pages, so you could set up something like this: http://www.ozpolitic.com/webring/webring.html If no-one is administrating, who will delete all the spam?

No static pages - it's a free board but I might set up a website and host it from there if more than two people join.  You are welcome and you won't get edited.

There is an Administrator and yes that is me as the holder of the board.  I meant I have not given deepthought mod status so to edit anything I have to go through the process of logging in as Admin etc.

I don't intend to moderate though unless it is essential (such as forum host rules make it necessary).  Adults can handle stuff - or not.  But they should have the choice to try.  If 'rude' words are hurtful it is best to ignore them or stay away.  I generally don't use them, and I don't get into abuse, but lots of people do - the worst so far has not been IQ as mantra claimed  - it is the dude who joined up to harass IQ.  Whoever that lonely soul is, is most welcome too.

All are.

Come along to provide balance - I hate to see an unbalanced board.  We righties need lefties so we can tell them how wrong they are.

Quote:

the worst so far has not been IQ as mantra claimed  - it is the dude who joined up to harass IQ.  Whoever that lonely soul is, is most welcome too.

This sounds exciting - IQ has her own troll tailing her - wonders will never cease.  This I've got to see.  

I just had a look.  The new poster hasn't got a very pleasant name has he/she?  It doesn't give your site a good look.  But then again, you believe in freedom of expression, so it's to be expected.

freediver - good on you.
You handle the storms of blogging well.

Thanks for the compliment sprint. I've been taking some time to work on the rest of my site. It's amazing when you come back to something after a long time you see it with 'new eyes' and you can see all the glaring problems.

Hopefully all the drama will blow over soon and we can get back to some interesting debates. It puts me off forums when people try to make all the debate center around themselves.

yes, seems forums have periods when they are good and periods when they are quiet too.

If the forum seems quiet at the moment, I suspect it is more because I have stopped posting SMH articles every day. I got a bit bored with it and don't seem to have the time any more. A few members have taken up a bit of the slack, which is good.

Activity within  in forums wax and wane..this has happened many times..it will pick up.

deepthought wrote on Apr 12^th, 2008 at 7:04pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2008 at 6:35pm: Thanks Deepthought. Did they give you any static pages, so you could set up something like this: http://www.ozpolitic.com/webring/webring.html If no-one is administrating, who will delete all the spam? No static pages - it's a free board but I might set up a website and host it from there if more than two people join.  You are welcome and you won't get edited. There is an Administrator and yes that is me as the holder of the board.  I meant I have not given deepthought mod status so to edit anything I have to go through the process of logging in as Admin etc. I don't intend to moderate though unless it is essential (such as forum host rules make it necessary).  Adults can handle stuff - or not.  But they should have the choice to try.  If 'rude' words are hurtful it is best to ignore them or stay away.  I generally don't use them, and I don't get into abuse, but lots of people do - the worst so far has not been IQ as mantra claimed  - it is the dude who joined up to harass IQ.  Whoever that lonely soul is, is most welcome too. All are. Come along to provide balance - I hate to see an unbalanced board.  We righties need lefties so we can tell them how wrong they are.

The limitations of free boards is too frustrating so I have splashed out and got . . . a free website!!!

With this I have full ftp access though so I can fully customise the board.  I uploaded the board last night but as yet there are no forums.

freediver come along and register - we need a few leftoids and you are welcome, as is everybody else of course.

I will set up a links page in time.

I promise a far less serious (and largely funny) free experience on the web than most political forums so I won't be competing with those who try and maintain some decorum - theres' too much of that in real life and the web is too intangible.

Come one, come all

http://deepthought.zzl.org/liberty/

Register and wait . . . . . .

Get in early to get your nick (or Aussie will take it)

Will you continue to post here deepthought?  Although your site might have some potential, FD needs more posters, not less.  

mantra wrote on Apr 14^th, 2008 at 8:49am:

Will you continue to post here deepthought?  Although your site might have some potential, FD needs more posters, not less.

I'm not suggesting anyone leave freediver's site.  It has a hell of a lot more than I can offer.  His user run boards and comment on all kinds of issues is beyond the scope of what I plan on doing.

But I still have issues with the arbitrary moderation here.  As I said I reckon Oceans is at least as destructive, if not more in terms of spamming and flaming the forum with unrelated and derogatory pics and insults but if that's how she wants to post she should go for it - I can ignore it.

But she stays, IQ goes.  Why?  I can only think of one reason - bias.

And fair play is at the heart of every right thinking (and right leaning) Australian.  So I object.  But it is freediver's forum so if I want a 'better' (as in freer) forum I need to start one myself - not just talk about it.

I have.

It's an alternative is all.  People are free to post at both, or one, or neither.

Try it out at http://deepthought.zzl.org/liberty/ but remember you can't post at this stage, only register.

Smile and the world smiles with you.i