Backgrounds in moderation

[Gustav]

Would I like to return to a forum that thrives on intellect, humour, wit and creativity. Yes.

excellent

edit: ha! i remember you now spurious, as muddled and indecisive as ever

 

[Varda]

I must take a nap. Please don't break the internet while I am gone.

 

[Gustav]

Yeah. It's Gustav, the man whose primary or perhaps only aim in posting on the forum at present (as far as I can tell) is to do his best to undermine the moderator group, of which you were, until your resignation, a part. I'm sure right now he's smiling quietly to himself over your
self-sacrifice on his altar. Job part-done.

ah yes
the vindictive hatred and psychotic delusions

ah yes
reality

 

[elitist]

I can distinctly remember Gustav defending the moderators instead of me, while i was on my crusade for justice many years ago.

But I might misremember that also.

 

[Gustav]

i might have been defending the forums rather than the mods?

spurious
i am awesome yes?

 

[Gustav]

How about some "truth giving light" on the discussion on this topic in the mod forum? I promise to extend my deepest gratitude. I'm sure James will be equally delighted - apparently what is a bannable offense in others - note the official censorship of ************** [s p u r i o u s f o r u m s] - is cause for gratitude when it comes from you

this bit of hypocrisy deserves its own thread

 

[Enmos]

ahh but leaving shit hanging brings precisely these kinds of results.......

poor james
would you like to see what i can do with this bit of material, enmos?
i mean, you are intent on fueling the flames, are you not, enmos

should i post the pms? should i not? should i post the pms? should i not? should i post the pms? should i not? should i post the pms? should i not?

who needs pm's when we have freudian shit right out in the open?

*bolding mine

Well, Gustav, I guess I should apologize. So hereby I want to apologize to you for suggesting that you may have had wrong intentions by asking to reinstate Spuriousmonkey.
I don't know, I saw two statements that didn't fit and just went with it.
I do have to point out that I never concluded anything, however I did create doubt.

Also, James, please do not act on what I quoted from **************. I now believe I was wrong, everything points to it.

 

[chimpkin]

Bells said:

What forum did I impose exactly?

Human Sciences?

Don't worry Geoff, the rubber hose I beat the posters with there is really soft on the skin..

Though she is no longer a mod I for one would be happy to let Bells tie me up and beat me with a rubber hose.

Sadly, I cannot get to Australia.:bawl:

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Lie.

Oh? Shall we take a trip down memory lane where monkey boy went nuts, created a forum, poached members from sciforums, and encouraged them to troll, deface, and spam sciforums? All the history is still there.

Oh but wait, maybe you mean that monkey forums forged a new identity of "survival of the fittest" forums? How did that work out? Still have a great selection of active and engaging sub-forums? What, you don't? So what's left? Oh wait I know, the same exact bullshit that was on monkey forums when it started.

And speaking of history, after I pointed out the recent intent-to-troll sciforums activity on monkey forums, anonymous viewing of certain areas of the forum was magically locked down.

I can only speculate that you don't know what a lie actually is. I'll clarify it for you. A lie is when you intentionally issue a statement of truth that doesn't match actual reality. For example, stating that you miss your friends and then stating that you have no friends (references available upon request).

So, I encourage you to take your accusation and shove it up your dirty pie hole.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Spurious created his forum because at the time he felt that some of the types of post that moderators came down on heavy here should have somewhere to occur. So while he wasn't inciting a riot, he was against certain forms of moderator mentality and censorship.

He did more than that. He encouraged a lot of destructive behavior against sciforums.

It wasn't to plot attacks against Sciforums, however it obviously became a haven for any sciforums exiles and some of them have the resentment against the sciforums.

I can remember reading many threads on the monkey forum over the years about ways to enjoy being destructive on sciforums. Monkey boy was neither a source of discouragement or neutrality in many of them.

It's there resentment that has fuelled all of this, Spurious of course isn't going to tell them what to do, after all it's gathered that they are all potentially rational human beings, so if there is a problem with their behaviour it should be addressed to them (not spurious or his forum, after all I'm pretty sure he likely runs a disclaimer about poster content being discretionary and the view of the poster isn't necessarily held by the forum or it's owner.)

From what I have seen, the embers of hate and douchbaggery against sciforums (aka: Buh Blammy) are still quite hot on monkey forums. If the moderaters want to reinstate him as a member then I will support that decision; however, I do not recommend it.

 

[Trippy]

You don't know how spurious approached Gustav, it was through his sock account here [since banned]. You don't know what they said in their private communications - which others may not be privy to [ this means you ] - so citing what spurious said to someone else is not evidence of what he said to Gustav in private.

But what we do have is two and conflicting accounts of what happened, which means that one of them is neccessarily a lie.

 

[Varda]

Oh? Shall we take a trip down memory lane where monkey boy went nuts, created a forum, poached members from sciforums, and encouraged them to troll, deface, and spam sciforums? All the history is still there.

I'm pretty sure the forum already existed before he went nuts. I think it was created as a place to hang out when sciforums wasn't available, or something like that. The history is there as you say. Prove me wrong.

Oh but wait, maybe you mean that monkey forums forged a new identity of "survival of the fittest" forums? How did that work out? Still have a great selection of active and engaging sub-forums? What, you don't? So what's left? Oh wait I know, the same exact bullshit that was on monkey forums when it started.

There aren't enough people to keep several forums active. They were recently condensed so that the active topics are easier to find. Everything that was there before is still there, except now in fewer bins.

Then of course, if you go there specifically looking for basing and flaming of sf, it's very easy to find. However, it's ridiculous to say that it's the sole purpose of the forum though. That is lie.

And speaking of history, after I pointed out the recent intent-to-troll sciforums activity on monkey forums, anonymous viewing of certain areas of the forum was magically locked down.

Well it seems very delicate eyes were glancing upon those areas and becoming irreparably hurt. Isn't it better if we spare these delicate eyes?

Also, repeating an advise I gave to JamesR, if you don't like what is being said about you/your favorite website, instead of trying to shut them up, why not try to be less hateable?

I can only speculate that you don't know what a lie actually is. I'll clarify it for you. A lie is when you intentionally issue a statement of truth that doesn't match actual reality. For example, stating that you miss your friends and then stating that you have no friends (references available upon request).


So, I encourage you to take your accusation and shove it up your dirty pie hole.

For example, saying that there is a "sole purpose" on a website that has multiple purposes.

For example, taking people's quotes out of context to support your fantasy.

miss my friends = friends, as in online acquaintances
have no friends = friends, as in people in real life that you have to humor in order to sustain an image of having a social life
(I think that's pretty clear from where the quotes are getting pulled from)

Anyway...

I like my pies accusation-free. And with a little whipped cream.

 

[GeoffP]

Can I ask? Why are you inserting yourself in something that does not concern you at all?

No, seriously, why?

I love the immediate sense of contempt for my honesty: why are you in here? No, really. Because, of course, any answer I give must be dishonest.

How to answer? Because I'm a free member of SF and, as such, am permitted to legitimately comment on an issue if it will help public discourse? Because this is a discussion site and one, well, discusses on it? Because I have an interest in the public record? Have I misunderstood the point of this place? Or is it my place in this point that you disagree with?

Come to think of it...why is Enmos inserting himself? Varda? Gustav? Spurious, himself? Surely this doesn't concern any of them, either? And so on.

Nope. I told you that you got the forums you asked for. That it is the members who direct where we go.

I disagree, as I will elucidate (somewhat) below.

Since you seemed unable to actually articulate what exactly it was you wanted

Well, everyone else seems to have got it.

Okay. I think I need to establish something because you seem a tad confused.

My stepping down had nothing to do with you.

Excellent. If I had nothing to do with it, then well and good; colour me very relieved. Just refrain from calling me out for it, and we're good. Say no more!

So again,

You asked only in this first post, so far. It's not really "again" unless I fail to address the question. I haven't had time to respond in the space that it takes to press a key.

can I ask why you are inserting yourself into an issue that does not concern you at all but is actually between myself (personally) and James and the moderators and the few members involved?

I responded most adroitly above. I recommend its perusal very strongly.

What forum did I impose exactly?

Human Sciences?

How does one impose a forum?

Oooookay...

So you are here to say 'take that!' for something something?

Nooooo....

You know, you obviously have your own axe to grind with me, kind of obvious really. Considering I have barely said anything to you for months

Except a series of long PMs last month, which is not months.

, I responded to you directly in this thread because you named me specifically in this thread and I asked you what you wanted and was quite polite about it, my comments that it is the members who make the forum was not just me, but also originally said to you by Tiassa and also supported by James...

Yes yes: but it isn't exactly so, is it? SF receives direction from above and below. Pardon the appeal to popularity, but...everyone knows this. We disagree with the above positions of you, and of Tiassa, and of James. Sorry.

What exactly do you want from me Geoff?

No, seriously, what? You insert yourself now in something that has absolutely nothing to do with you and then act like the victim when I don't really take you seriously?

The bizarre 'victim' comment aside - how, exactly? what is your fixation with victimhood? - I'm permitted to comment. And I feel that it's well worth it.

What do I want from you? What do I want from you? "No, seriously, what?"

Well, it's complicated. I've been observing this meme among certain of the moderators - you're getting what you aaaasked for; you're going to regreeeeet insisting on equality, Geeeeooooffff, dooooom, Geeeeofff and so forth.

Now, it should be obvious that the OP is not about what's being discussed now: a simple question about direction, without an answer being supplied, and certainly without demands, and actually well answered and discussed in the first few pages. But what's happened since...well, it's classic SF, but to such a degree that it supersedes almost any flame-out I can think of, with the exception of a few, long, drawn-out holocausti. One of the new gripes is about James' request to keep it off the boards, and PM him about the issues. All right, fair enough. Maybe it should be open, maybe it shouldn't. But at least one mod posting about this is the very same one that shut down my own comments on another thread, which were quite similar: a simple question about procedure or presentation. Nothing hideous. But, selfsame mod doesn't recognize this. Or doesn't care.

So what I was on about just now then was simple recognition of the fact that personal issues inject themselves into most aspects of the forum. This thread is one example. There are others. Since you ask, and since you seem to demand some more deep, more spine-shatteringly soulful answer, that would be a good one: the personal issues among and from some of the mods are a problem. (Not always, of course, but sometimes.) Within the last while, it has resulted in a polarity: do you think it's the posters taking on the mods with such distain? Well, all right, some do, sure; this thread being one such. But it's an aberration. As quadra put it, when a mod steps into a thread, they do so with all the weight of their modiness - sometimes but not always coupled with moodiness - behind them. And the insults and flagrant violations fly. Except this time the flamewar was power behind it. Want to libel? Well, no trouble: you cannot be assailed. Say what you like, true or otherwise? Fine. And sure, you can report above, as I have done - mea culpa bastardii. But in fact, the outcome of that is...nothing at all. It continues, unabated. Will the admins really take punitive action to the extent that one might against a poster? Of course not. What admin will ban a mod for the behaviour that a mod will ban a poster for? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, really?

And, maybe who can blame them? Should they shuffle the staff every two weeks? Or do we ask too much? I think you feel the latter, at least, and maybe you're right. Or should the staff not put themselves in a position to be shuffled every two weeks? Quadra mentions new blood. Maybe, if no other system can end this polarization, that might not be so bad. Last resort, mind; but pertinent. The tree of liberty should be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. (Not that we have any real tyrants, or patriots.) Well, I wasn't even going so far in the OP but, meh.

Now, maybe all insults and all infractions should simply stop: sure. That's hopeful but not reasonable. And so, there's no sense of equanimity: the age-old story of EFC rears it's head, even: thems posters gets the thread they wantses, Geeooffff. Well, I disagree, and so do lots of others. We also get the forum imposed upon us: baiting and name-calling and presumption and condescension, and from a common font so self-righteous that it would make a Pharisee do a double-take. I know you're not a bad person, Bells; still, the discussions on here are getting out of hand. No person is truly innocent, of course, but it is my feeling that it often isn't the posters letting fly with the invective. Is it those without power who cross that boundary first? That would be relatively rare. (I strike gustav off as an outlier here, because...well. He is.)

Otherwise, short of asking you if you've had a few too many drinks, I bid thee farewell..

I think you're thinking of the much-absent hypewaders, that time last year. I'm really more a teetotaler. Nonetheless, I raise a glass in honour of your question.

I guess I did have more to say after all. Thanks for helping me with it.

Best,

Geoff

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I'm pretty sure the forum already existed before he went nuts. I think it was created as a place to hang out when sciforums wasn't available, or something like that. The history is there as you say. Prove me wrong.

In your PM Inbox. I didn't want to post it here because it contains Monkey Boy's detailed personal contact info.

There aren't enough people to keep several forums active. They were recently condensed so that the active topics are easier to find. Everything that was there before is still there, except now in fewer bins.

Then of course, if you go there specifically looking for basing and flaming of sf, it's very easy to find. However, it's ridiculous to say that it's the sole purpose of the forum though. That is lie.

I know you are a big fan of context, so what is the one trend that has existed and still exists on monkey forms since its inception? Basing and flaming SF. It's not even a rare because like you said, it's easy to find. You can assign a label of hundreds of purposes to a forum but the persistent trend of what people engage in becomes the purpose of the forum. The trend is very well established and like it or not that is the forum's sole purpose.

Well it seems very delicate eyes were glancing upon those areas and becoming irreparably hurt. Isn't it better if we spare these delicate eyes?

Also, repeating an advise I gave to JamesR, if you don't like what is being said about you/your favorite website, instead of trying to shut them up, why not try to be less hateable?

I am surprised, for someone who advocates letting people know exactly where you stand I never would have guessed that you were such a strong supporter of deception. The answer to your question of course is no.

For example, saying that there is a "sole purpose" on a website that has multiple purposes.

For example, taking people's quotes out of context to support your fantasy.

miss my friends = friends, as in online acquaintances
have no friends = friends, as in people in real life that you have to humor in order to sustain an image of having a social life
(I think that's pretty clear from where the quotes are getting pulled from)

Anyway...

I like my pies accusation-free. And with a little whipped cream.

Right back at ya'.

 

[Bells]

I love the immediate sense of contempt for my honesty: why are you in here? No, really. Because, of course, any answer I give must be dishonest.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm still trying to figure out what exactly you want or expect from me.

You seem to have this bee in your backside about 'something something' I may have done or not done so you're here to let me know about it. Okay..

How to answer? Because I'm a free member of SF and, as such, am permitted to legitimately comment on an issue if it will help public discourse? Because this is a discussion site and one, well, discusses on it? Because I have an interest in the public record? Have I misunderstood the point of this place? Or is it my place in this point that you disagree with?

So what issue are you commenting on, exactly? My argument with James? The issues the "free members" of this forum have with the way this forum is administered and moderated? Or 'something something'?

It's as if you're coming after me for not having spoken to you and for telling you that it is the members who make this forum what it is...

Come to think of it...why is Enmos inserting himself? Varda? Gustav? Spurious, himself? Surely this doesn't concern any of them, either? And so on.

Because they are directly involved in the discussion we are discussing. I'm still trying to figure out what you want to discuss or what beef you have with me personally. Hell, we spent a few pages at the start of this thread trying to figure out what exactly you want. And here we are again..

I disagree, as I will elucidate (somewhat) below.

Then you disagree.

Okay..

Well, everyone else seems to have got it.

Well good for them.

So you're coming after me now because of....?

Excellent. If I had nothing to do with it, then well and good; colour me very relieved. Just refrain from calling me out for it, and we're good. Say no more!

Ermm okay..

I never called you out on "it", whatever that "it" may be. I was discussing my resignation with James. Not with you. My issues with management has nothing to do with you.

You asked only in this first post, so far. It's not really "again" unless I fail to address the question. I haven't had time to respond in the space that it takes to press a key.

No, I believe I asked you that earlier on in the thread as well. And was told that the thread was really an interrogation of sorts..

Look Geoff, I don't currently have an issue with you. You seem to have a very big one with you. Until the start of this thread, I had pretty much ignored you on this forum for quite a while. Maybe that's the problem, I don't know. I only responded to you in this thread because you pointed the finger at me directly when you were asked what you were on about by the others (moderators, members and admin) at the start of this thread.

I say again because I honestly do not know what the hell you're on about with me now or what you want from me in particular.

I responded most adroitly above. I recommend its perusal very strongly.

Lets see, first you accused me of not being qualified enough, then you accused me of 'something something', then you accused me of being wrong because I dared say that it is the members who make this forum what it is and direct what this forum becomes.. Now...?

How does one impose a forum?

I don't know. You told me "So: you get the forum you impose. "...

So what forum did I impose on you?

Nooooo....

Could have fooled me.

Except a series of long PMs last month, which is not months.

I meant in the public forums. You had asked how I was going and I responded to you via PM's, due to the private nature of what I had to say.

Yes yes: but it isn't exactly so, is it? SF receives direction from above and below. Pardon the appeal to popularity, but...everyone knows this. We disagree with the above positions of you, and of Tiassa, and of James. Sorry.

Okay then. You disagree.

And?

Is there something I'm supposed to do now?

The bizarre 'victim' comment aside - how, exactly? what is your fixation with victimhood? - I'm permitted to comment. And I feel that it's well worth it.

So you accused me of doing a 'nasty' to you for stating my opinion, which you disagree with because, when I had responded to you politely. You then tried to say 'something something' about 'something something' about me, which I'm still not quite understanding... You seemed to be carrying on as if I was angry at you for my resignation, when you really had nothing to do with it.. You're commenting because you disagree with the assessment that it's the members who make this forum what it is..

You are allowed your opinion Geoff.

Well worth what exactly?

In short, what's your issue with me exactly?

What do I want from you? What do I want from you? "No, seriously, what?"

Well, it's complicated. I've been observing this meme among certain of the moderators - you're getting what you aaaasked for; you're going to regreeeeet insisting on equality, Geeeeooooffff, dooooom, Geeeeofff and so forth.

Ermm at no time did I ever say to you that you are going to 'regreeeet insisting on equality', or 'doooom', or whatnot.

Is this your way of telling me that I'm getting what I asked for? From whom? James? You?

It must be complicated, because you are making absolutely no sense..

Now, it should be obvious that the OP is not about what's being discussed now: a simple question about direction, without an answer being supplied, and certainly without demands, and actually well answered and discussed in the first few pages. But what's happened since...well, it's classic SF, but to such a degree that it supersedes almost any flame-out I can think of, with the exception of a few, long, drawn-out holocausti. One of the new gripes is about James' request to keep it off the boards, and PM him about the issues. All right, fair enough. Maybe it should be open, maybe it shouldn't. But at least one mod posting about this is the very same one that shut down my own comments on another thread, which were quite similar: a simple question about procedure or presentation. Nothing hideous. But, selfsame mod doesn't recognize this. Or doesn't care.

Who and what the hell are you talking about?!

Gawd..

What the bejesus dude? I have zero idea what you are talking about. Do you have a link?

So what I was on about just now then was simple recognition of the fact that personal issues inject themselves into most aspects of the forum. This thread is one example. There are others. Since you ask, and since you seem to demand some more deep, more spine-shatteringly soulful answer, that would be a good one: the personal issues among and from some of the mods are a problem. (Not always, of course, but sometimes.) Within the last while, it has resulted in a polarity: do you think it's the posters taking on the mods with such distain? Well, all right, some do, sure; this thread being one such. But it's an aberration. As quadra put it, when a mod steps into a thread, they do so with all the weight of their modiness - sometimes but not always coupled with moodiness - behind them. And the insults and flagrant violations fly. Except this time the flamewar was power behind it. Want to libel? Well, no trouble: you cannot be assailed. Say what you like, true or otherwise? Fine. And sure, you can report above, as I have done - mea culpa bastardii. But in fact, the outcome of that is...nothing at all. It continues, unabated. Will the admins really take punitive action to the extent that one might against a poster? Of course not. What admin will ban a mod for the behaviour that a mod will ban a poster for? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, really?

Ermm didn't I say earlier on in this thread that everyone has their own bias but the important thing was not to act on said bias and moderate out of that bias? Which is what I am arguing about with James.

And in case you weren't aware, mods have been banned before.

And libel? What?

And, maybe who can blame them? Should they shuffle the staff every two weeks? Or do we ask too much? I think you feel the latter, at least, and maybe you're right. Or should the staff not put themselves in a position to be shuffled every two weeks? Quadra mentions new blood. Maybe, if no other system can end this polarization, that might not be so bad. Last resort, mind; but pertinent. The tree of liberty should be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. (Not that we have any real tyrants, or patriots.) Well, I wasn't even going so far in the OP but, meh.

Okay...

I said that the voting system did not work last time. In fact, the last time it was tried on this forum it nearly resulted in the forum no longer existing. It was a complete and utter disaster. That was how moderators used to be elected in the past Geoff. And some of the mods put in place were dubious to say the least and their moderation drove away many people.. or those they didn't ban for anything and everything, sometimes even just for fun.

I am not saying that the "tree of liberty" should not be refreshed with "new blood". Quite the contrary. Or have you missed the point of my argument with James?

Yes? No?

Now, maybe all insults and all infractions should simply stop: sure. That's hopeful but not reasonable. And so, there's no sense of equanimity: the age-old story of EFC rears it's head, even: thems posters gets the thread they wantses, Geeooffff. Well, I disagree, and so do lots of others. We also get the forum imposed upon us: baiting and name-calling and presumption and condescension, and from a common font so self-righteous that it would make a Pharisee do a double-take. I know you're not a bad person, Bells; still, the discussions on here are getting out of hand. No person is truly innocent, of course, but it is my feeling that it often isn't the posters letting fly with the invective. Is it those without power who cross that boundary first? That would be relatively rare. (I strike gustav off as an outlier here, because...well. He is.)

Your Lord of the Rings comparison aside, you are not exactly innocent. Look at this thread as a prime example. You are trying to bait me into abusing you, accused me of abusing you in this thread when I had not done so, acting as if I'm hounding you for disagreeing with me about the members making this forum and directing where we go, when I had not.

In short, you are saying 'I know you're not a bad person Bells, but... something something'..

Do you actually understand why I resigned? I don't think you do. In fact, it is clear you do not.

How can I put this.. If you have an issue with the discussions in this place, or how said discussion happens, and if you are unhappy, take it up with management. James advised us he is very open to questions and is apparently not remote or forbidding.

 

[Varda]

In your PM Inbox. I didn't want to post it here because it contains Monkey Boy's detailed personal contact info.

Ok, well. That there is animosity between the two crowds is no secret to anyone. I've seen this kind of exodus of a few members of a board to go make their own forum at least 3 times in the last decade. It's not an unusual thing.

I don't think that because the forum was created because people fought and left, that means that the other forum's sole purpose is to bash this one.
There is a lot of discussion going on there that has nothing to do with sf.

Maybe you weren't lying. Maybe you were just exagerating. Maybe I shouldn't have taken you to be talking literally. Is that the case?

I know you are a big fan of context, so what is the one trend that has existed and still exists on monkey forms since its inception? Basing and flaming SF. It's not even a rare because like you said, it's easy to find. You can assign a label of hundreds of purposes to a forum but the persistent trend of what people engage in becomes the purpose of the forum. The trend is very well established and like it or not that is the forum's sole purpose.

There are constant posts making fun of canadians, finnish, australians... There are constant posts making fun of engineers and scientists. There is widespread leg pulling between the members. There is too much going on to call any single thing "the purpose of the forum"
You seem to have put your focus while browsing their site in a single trend, and ignored everything else. I'd call that prejudicial.

I am surprised, for someone who advocates letting people know exactly where you stand I never would have guessed that you were such a strong supporter of deception. The answer to your question of course is no.

It's not deception. The forum has been open for anyone to view for 4 years until recently. Likewise, my opinions and those of petty much everyone that posts there are public. (in fact, I still haven't heard an explanation of what the "two-faced" allegations were referring to).
It just so happens that now, spuriousmonkey is being considered by JamesR to be liable for the content in his website posted by third parties (dicks like me), a blatant violation of the safe harbor provision of the CDA (or whatever similar law exists in the country where his website is hosted). Let me get that for you:

(2) Civil Liability. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of — (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

Spuriousmonkey can't be held responsible for the shit I write. He also can't be forced to take the shit I write down. He may or may not agree with the shit I write, but that is irrelevant.

Thus, and this is my interpretation of the events, I believe that he decided to make things private in order to avoid being asked to start moderating his website in accordance with this one.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

the world is grey my friend. Not black and white.

Would I like to return to an oppressive site where I would have to carefully walk the tightrope of censorship? No.

Would I like to return to a forum that thrives on intellect, humour, wit and creativity. Yes.

It's up to you really. And by you I mean all of you. If you want me back I will consider coming back.

Your the Mcmuffin guy that likes a thin pick right ? I better check that

Mr. Mac Gilligan. O.K. . slow you know Me not him

 

[chimpkin]

Crunchy Cat:
I know you are a big fan of context, so what is the one trend that has existed and still exists on monkey forms since its inception? Basing and flaming SF. It's not even a rare because like you said, it's easy to find. You can assign a label of hundreds of purposes to a forum but the persistent trend of what people engage in becomes the purpose of the forum. The trend is very well established and like it or not that is the forum's sole purpose.

It seems more of a place for a few people to make fun of everything.
Because of the low traffic it's not a poop-slinging madhouse like FARK, in which everything is also made fun of....
It's....laid-back.
Liking it for different reasons than I like here.
Speaking of other places...
I was just looking at another science website this afternoon and thinking, wow, the sociology and psychology subfora are sooo slow, wonder if I started making a bunch of really good posts I could wake it up a bit...

Besides that...not everything's about here and all our egos.
If you want my ego I do carry a spare, though...He's a funny guy.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

It seems more of a place for a few people to make fun of everything.
Because of the low traffic it's not a poop-slinging madhouse like FARK, in which everything is also made fun of....
It's....laid-back.
Liking it for different reasons than I like here.
Speaking of other places...
I was just looking at another science website this afternoon and thinking, wow, the sociology and psychology subfora are sooo slow, wonder if I started making a bunch of really good posts I could wake it up a bit...

Besides that...not everything's about here and all our egos.
If you want my ego I do carry a spare, though.

your suppose to sell egos and then call it self help. You are driving the cost of egos down . Do we need to apply a like Milk price fixing on you . God I can feel my ego cheapening all ready . I"m Melting Ahhhh I'm melting SSSSizzle drip

I looked at monkey mans site a little . Wow parallel universes do exist . There not quite the same thou . They got tanks !!

You all know I love this bar .

 

[chimpkin]

your suppose to sell egos and then call it self help. You are driving the cost of egos down . Do we need to apply a like Milk price fixing on you . God I can feel my ego cheapening all ready . I"m Melting Ahhhh I'm melting SSSSizzle drip

OH JEEBUS!

*Scoops Mikey up in large bucket*