Australian Politics Forum - Re: Why should we

Cu Chulainn

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2135
Gender: male

Re: Why should we
Reply #165 - Dec 24^th, 2018 at 8:10pm

Aussie wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 7:20pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 6:57pm:

Aussie. Are you going to deny you have claimed abuse of PMs by someone who said you threatened them via PM?

Yes or no will do.

I have already said that I did. That is the whole point!!!!! I complained publicly and privately even to you...and NOTHING WAS DONE by you...so I posted the PM which proved the person making the allegation a complete liar....and you still did nothing.

Ergo...conclusion...precedent...it is not an offence to allegedly describe a PM provided you don't post the actual content.

Farq me dead. Are you pissed?

Threatened is pretty vague and gives no indication of the contents as shown when you posted the PM, Gregg claiming Bobby PMed Gregg wanting poof relations with him is pretty specific. I'm sure you see the difference but I'm not so sure you want to.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39875
Gender: male

Re: Why should we
Reply #166 - Dec 24^th, 2018 at 8:28pm

Choo Choo....your Ruling is clear.

Though shalt not describe the content of a PM....even if you do not quote the PM word for word.

I disagree with that Ruling, but, as you say.....my view is a piece of goatshit on a windy hill, and only yours matters as you have the buttons. I get that. So....I act upon your Rulings. My view is that it is a Rule breach to give an adjective to the content of a PM when posting about it. That's the way it is with consistency. I am consistent, you are not.

So.....in conceptual terms, given your Ruling there is no difference whatsoever in me saying you sent me a threatening PM and me saying that you sent me a poofy PM ~ Both purport to describe the content of the PM.

But.....when I made the very point you now want to harass Peccary over....you completely ignore that you absolved those who posted that I had sent them a threatening PM.

Consistency chickens homing to roost Choo Choo. It is blatantly clear that you not only ignored your own Ruling of the past, but you did so to attack someone you don't like to appease someone you do.

You are doing it again right now with Fuzzball who clearly was saying Peccarry is a paedo......something we all know means an instant ban.....ask Rhino...and you pull out a wet lettuce......and guess what....the victim is the bloke you don't like, Peccarry.

Do you see?

Back to top

IP Logged

Cu Chulainn

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2135
Gender: male

Re: Why should we
Reply #167 - Dec 24^th, 2018 at 8:35pm

Aussie wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 8:28pm:

Choo Choo....your Ruling is clear.

Though shalt not describe the content of a PM....even if you do not quote the PM word for word.

I disagree with that Ruling, but, as you say.....my view is a piece of goatshit on a windy hill, and only yours matters as you have the buttons. I get that. So....I act upon your Rulings. My view is that it is a Rule breach to give an adjective to the content of a PM when posting about it. That's the way it is with consistency. I am consistent, you are not.

So.....in conceptual terms, given your Ruling there is no difference whatsoever in me saying you sent me a threatening PM and me saying that you sent me a poofy PM ~ Both purport to describe the content of the PM.

But.....when I made the very point you now want to harass Peccary over....you completely ignore that you absolved those who posted that I had sent them a threatening PM.

Consistency chickens homing to roost Choo Choo. It is blatantly clear that you not only ignored your own Ruling of the past, but you did so to attack someone you don't like to appease someone you do.

You are doing it again right now with Fuzzball who clearly was saying Peccarry is a paedo......something we all know means an instant ban.....ask Rhino...and you pull out a wet lettuce......and guess what....the victim is the bloke you don't like, Peccarry.

Do you see?

I agree. What Gregg alleged was not just a poofy PM with no other context. It was that Bobby wanted to have sexual relations with him. You see the difference?

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78311 Gender:	Re: Why should we Reply #168 - Dec 24^th, 2018 at 8:53pm here we go folks, goal posts are shifting again. Now it has to do with how vague or specific the reference to the pm is before you bury yourself further, I'll remind you that greg made no reference to what the contents of the PM were, only to what they didn't include.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:00pm by John Smith » Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78311 Gender:	Re: Why should we Reply #169 - Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:00pm Cu Chulainn wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 9:39pm: It's f@#$cking pathetic ohhh, avoiding the swear filter. A select few get banned for that. I guess it's lucky for you that the rules don't apply to you eh Set.
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 57083 Gender:	Re: Why should we Reply #170 - Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:00pm John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 4:30pm: keep trying to remain relevant jasmin ... it's all you've got in life More like trying to keep things simple for you and inside your comfort zone because you're a boring boofhead with no discussional enterprise beyond your own personal self.
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

Cu Chulainn

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2135
Gender: male

Re: Why should we
Reply #171 - Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:08pm

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:00pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 9:39pm:

It's f@#$cking pathetic

ohhh, avoiding the swear filter. A select few get banned for that. I guess it's lucky for you that the rules don't apply to you eh Set. Roll Eyes

So you know what @#$ translates too? Far cough.<-- Aussie's favourite. I guess they don't apply to him either. You want to try? Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39875
Gender: male

Re: Why should we
Reply #172 - Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:11pm

Quote:

I agree. What Gregg alleged was not just a poofy PM with no other context. It was that Bobby wanted to have sexual relations with him. You see the difference?

There is none. Look:

Choo choo sent me a threatening PM. (One learns from that that the PM contained something of a threatening kind.)

Choo Choo sent me a propositioning PM. (One learns from that that the PM contained a proposition of poofy kind.)

Same same, and both breach MY version of proper way to interpret the Rule.

I don't have to go through the silly hoops you place in your own way. I am consistent. You are not, and this recent outbreak by you (especially given the apparent Fuzzball wet lettuce for his paedo reference to Peccarry of this evening) shows demonstrably that you are targeting Peccarry because he is not in your dumb arse cheer squad. Fuzzball is, so he gets a cuddle with the wet lettuce.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Why should we
Reply #173 - Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:14pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:00pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 9:39pm:

It's f@#$cking pathetic

ohhh, avoiding the swear filter. A select few get banned for that. I guess it's lucky for you that the rules don't apply to you eh Set. Roll Eyes

So you know what @#$ translates too? Far cough.<-- Aussie's favourite. I guess they don't apply to him either. You want to try? Grin

ohh, I'm scared. Grin

tell me, how does your highlighting further discrepancies with the standard of moderation help you? If anything it highlights just how selective you are about applying / making up the rules, depending on whether you like the person or not.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Cu Chulainn

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2135
Gender: male

Re: Why should we
Reply #174 - Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:18pm

Aussie wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:11pm:

Quote:

I agree. What Gregg alleged was not just a poofy PM with no other context. It was that Bobby wanted to have sexual relations with him. You see the difference?

There is none. Look:

Choo choo sent me a threatening PM. (One learns from that that the PM contained something of a threatening kind.)

Choo Choo sent me a propositioning PM. (One learns from that that the PM contained a proposition of poofy kind.)

Same same, and both breach MY version of proper way to interpret the Rule.

I don't have to go through the silly hoops you place in your own way. I am consistent. You are not, and this recent outbreak by you (especially given the apparent Fuzzball wet lettuce for his paedo reference to Peccarry of this evening) shows demonstrably that you are targeting Peccarry because he is not in your dumb arse cheer squad. Fuzzball is, so he gets a cuddle with the wet lettuce.

I didn't ban piggy, I didn't ban fuzz, I haven't imposed a ban since that post in feedback. I have warned or advised people when they are getting a bit close to the line. Only piggy has got butt hurt over it and called in his chihuahuas to pee on my leg. Mr "don't tell me what to do" only has himself to blame for upping the ante.

As for cheer squad, I don't have a clique that I belong to, unlike you and piggy.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 154579
Gender: male

Re: Why should we
Reply #175 - Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:20pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:18pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:11pm:

Quote:

I agree. What Gregg alleged was not just a poofy PM with no other context. It was that Bobby wanted to have sexual relations with him. You see the difference?

There is none. Look:

Choo choo sent me a threatening PM. (One learns from that that the PM contained something of a threatening kind.)

Choo Choo sent me a propositioning PM. (One learns from that that the PM contained a proposition of poofy kind.)

Same same, and both breach MY version of proper way to interpret the Rule.

I don't have to go through the silly hoops you place in your own way. I am consistent. You are not, and this recent outbreak by you (especially given the apparent Fuzzball wet lettuce for his paedo reference to Peccarry of this evening) shows demonstrably that you are targeting Peccarry because he is not in your dumb arse cheer squad. Fuzzball is, so he gets a cuddle with the wet lettuce.

I didn't ban piggy, I didn't ban fuzz, I haven't imposed a ban since that post in feedback. I have warned or advised people when they are getting a bit close to the line. Only piggy has got butt hurt over it and called in his chihuahuas to pee on my leg. Mr "don't tell me what to do" only has himself to blame for upping the ante.

Was that a queef? Undecided

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Cu Chulainn

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2135
Gender: male

Re: Why should we
Reply #176 - Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:22pm

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:14pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:00pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 9:39pm:

It's f@#$cking pathetic

ohhh, avoiding the swear filter. A select few get banned for that. I guess it's lucky for you that the rules don't apply to you eh Set. Roll Eyes

So you know what @#$ translates too? Far cough.<-- Aussie's favourite. I guess they don't apply to him either. You want to try? Grin

ohh, I'm scared. Grin

tell me, how does your highlighting further discrepancies with the standard of moderation help you? If anything it highlights just how selective you are about applying / making up the rules, depending on whether you like the person or not.

Too scared to give it a go? It's easy, ask Aussie, he'll show you how to do it if you can't work it out. Here, try this one, far queue.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 154579
Gender: male

Re: Why should we
Reply #177 - Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:23pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:22pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:14pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:00pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 9:39pm:

It's f@#$cking pathetic

ohhh, avoiding the swear filter. A select few get banned for that. I guess it's lucky for you that the rules don't apply to you eh Set. Roll Eyes

So you know what @#$ translates too? Far cough.<-- Aussie's favourite. I guess they don't apply to him either. You want to try? Grin

ohh, I'm scared. Grin

tell me, how does your highlighting further discrepancies with the standard of moderation help you? If anything it highlights just how selective you are about applying / making up the rules, depending on whether you like the person or not.

Too scared to give it a go? It's easy, ask Aussie, he'll show you how to do it if you can't work it out. Here, try this one, far queue.

Does anyone else smell that?

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Cu Chulainn

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2135
Gender: male

Re: Why should we
Reply #178 - Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:24pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:20pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:18pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:11pm:

Quote:

I agree. What Gregg alleged was not just a poofy PM with no other context. It was that Bobby wanted to have sexual relations with him. You see the difference?

There is none. Look:

Choo choo sent me a threatening PM. (One learns from that that the PM contained something of a threatening kind.)

Choo Choo sent me a propositioning PM. (One learns from that that the PM contained a proposition of poofy kind.)

Same same, and both breach MY version of proper way to interpret the Rule.

I don't have to go through the silly hoops you place in your own way. I am consistent. You are not, and this recent outbreak by you (especially given the apparent Fuzzball wet lettuce for his paedo reference to Peccarry of this evening) shows demonstrably that you are targeting Peccarry because he is not in your dumb arse cheer squad. Fuzzball is, so he gets a cuddle with the wet lettuce.

I didn't ban piggy, I didn't ban fuzz, I haven't imposed a ban since that post in feedback. I have warned or advised people when they are getting a bit close to the line. Only piggy has got butt hurt over it and called in his chihuahuas to pee on my leg. Mr "don't tell me what to do" only has himself to blame for upping the ante.

Was that a queef? Undecided

Back to top

IP Logged

Cu Chulainn

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2135
Gender: male

Re: Why should we
Reply #179 - Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:24pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:23pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:22pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:14pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 9:00pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2018 at 9:39pm:

It's f@#$cking pathetic

ohhh, avoiding the swear filter. A select few get banned for that. I guess it's lucky for you that the rules don't apply to you eh Set. Roll Eyes

So you know what @#$ translates too? Far cough.<-- Aussie's favourite. I guess they don't apply to him either. You want to try? Grin

ohh, I'm scared. Grin

tell me, how does your highlighting further discrepancies with the standard of moderation help you? If anything it highlights just how selective you are about applying / making up the rules, depending on whether you like the person or not.

Too scared to give it a go? It's easy, ask Aussie, he'll show you how to do it if you can't work it out. Here, try this one, far queue.

Does anyone else smell that?

Back to top

IP Logged