SAM Behavior

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bells said:
put up or shut up.

Don't push me gustav.

And yes, that is a mod warning.
Click to expand...

She's got it rollin.

She's got it babe.

The big stick on you pal.

She'll ban you'll *s* straight up ...

so boy Gustav, listen to the woman with da POWER.

femdom-malesub.jpg
 
Randwolf said:
Kinda skinny, aintcha? Did u do well at hoops?
Click to expand...

If by skinny you mean slim, lean and strong, then yes. My height/weight is dead-on healthy, smack dab in the middle of the "normal" range of BMI. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. It's just too bad we can't say the same for the legions of buffalo here who have altered their perception of normality to include fat ugly slobs or in some people's cases here, fat ugly slobettes.

Thin is "in." Try it some time. :cool:
 
Last edited:
iceaura said:
The "confusing" part is the part quoted: "They just didn't want their non-Americaness to be exposed in a discussion in which they bashed America." Whatever did the lad mean by "exposed"? That seems to imply concealment, the discovery of something lowly or damaging. But he claims not to have meant such. So we have a bit of a mystery.
Click to expand...

Confusing why? This isn't a case where non American is a lower status. This is a case where a dissenting American's anti-American opinion holds more weight than the anti-American opinion of just another angry foreign national who hates America. And these folks were DEFINITELY trying to avert attention away from their nationality for the purposes of this discussion.
 
WillNever said:
If by skinny you mean slim, lean and strong, then yes. My height/weight is dead-on healthy, smack dab in the middle of the "normal" range of BMI. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. It's just too bad we can't say the same for the legions of buffalo here who have altered their perception of normality to include fat ugly slobs or in some people's cases here, fat ugly slobettes.

Thin is "in." Try it some time. :cool:
Click to expand...
Just a poor attempt at stereotypical humor on my part, WillNever, don't take it personally. I think Americans in general have tended to the overweight, out-of-shape side of the fence in the last few decades, so yes "thin is in" should be the way to go.

Of course it depends on your body type, on my frame, 190 - 200 is ideal (depending on whom you ask), but I have allowed an extra 5-10 pounds to creep on, guess I'm falling for the "laziness" in my old age. Either way, no one (to my knowledge) would look at me and say "God, you're a fatso!" I've always tended to weigh more than what I appear at first glance, even by trained observers such as police officers, physical trainers, etc. Another curiosity is that my waist size has only changed by 4" since I was 17. Don't quite understand that...

Not sure if it's a curse or blessing... :p
 
You can do better than that ... can't you?

WillNever said:

No but I've been thinking that about you.
Click to expand...

Oh, come now. You can do better than that, Will. Can't you?
 
willnever said:
This isn't a case where non American is a lower status. This is a case where a dissenting American's anti-American opinion holds more weight than the anti-American opinion of just another angry foreign national who hates America.
Click to expand...
Keep digging, you'll get there.
 
Bells said:
When it is out in the open, it allows open dialogue. Those who wish to question should be free to do so. That way, they are able to gain access to the correct information, rather than have to question privately and fall prey to violent denialists who wish to cause harm and violence.

I am one of those people who dislikes underground movements because they are by their very nature, dangerous. It's better to be open and honest than to attempt to hide. By not making it illegal, those who climb up on that platform and attempt to use it as propaganda against others can be shouted down by those who know the truth. By silencing the denialists, you are also silencing those who are avidly against them and who are the voices of reason.
Click to expand...

that's from a discussion bells had with sam over 2 years ago. more excerpts can be found in this thread. the trolls reading that would think they have walked into the twilight zone cos bells argues that holocaust denial should be legal while sam does not

what can we now infer from sam's position? holocaust denial is bad. why? because the fact that it happened is easily substantiated....etc
yet, 2 years down the road sam attempts to do just that. how does bells respond.........

Bells said:
I think the question that needs to be asked at this point is do you doubt that it even happened? Do you doubt the figures of those who died? Do you doubt the evidence of the survivors, the images that came out of those camps, the factual representation of those who witnessed it first hand? Do you doubt the Nazi's who openly implemented the final solution?..............

However there is a fine line between asking questions and asking questions in an attempt to deny the event itself. Many of those who ask the questions believe it is a conspiracy, that it never happened at all. That it was all made up. Now where does that belief stem from?..........

Again, the question needs to be asked.. Are people questioning the Holocaust because they simply do not know? Or are they questioning it because they have a hatred of Jews?

After the genocide in Rwanda, there was also a lot of questions raised about the true death toll. It should be noted that many of those who asked those questions, doubted the toll itself or deny it happened were Hutus or Hutu sympathisers.
Click to expand...


oh dearie dearie me.
now what can i infer from bells's position? is she is questioning sam's motives for asking questions about the holocaust? how? by asking if she is a jew hater? indirectly asking sam if she is a nazi or nazi sympathizer by way of the rwandan analogy?

i mean, that was her grand entrance into the thread...an clear attempt to flame the thread into a closure by trolling with shit that had nothing to do with the op




well bells
so are mine



what evidence? what picture? that sam is a nazi loving jew hater?
again put up or shut the fuck up



yup
sam still got banned on some trumped up charges and you bells, are still at it, ready for round two....................
 
Bells said:
And where did "we" note that? Do you have direct proof that I said Sam is a white nazi from Germany or someone who is a nazi sympathiser?
Click to expand...

lemme illustrate the art of making inferences

day 1: bells is eats candy while sam looks on
day 2: the pig is still eating candy while sam unhappily looks on
day 3:the fat pig eats more candy and refuses to share with sam

i infer bells is a selfish pig
i could be mistaken tho
what if bells tells me that sam has her own candy and is hoarding it?

that is where the onus of giving an explanation passes on to you. you tell me my inference is wrong by sharing facts that i am not aware of. it is simple as that

so, do you have something substantive to give me to justify all your wild speculations on sam's motives with regards to whatever you hold her to be doing? what did you vote to ban her on? what were the charges you made or agreed with?? until you come out with a clear statement of what you know sam to be, what she represents rather than...

Gustav said:
ah, still trolling with the disingenuous innuendos and sneaky insinuations. this incessant questioning of motives. you obviously lack both principles and the courage of your fanatical convictions.
Click to expand...

...that


regioncapture5m.jpg


either make the case or stfu. stop trolling. it is blatantly obvious that you hold her to be a jew hating nazi despite the lack of an explicit statement. one only has to look at your trollish rhetoric to figure out how.as far as i am concerned, that is the logical inference i make.

so far i only see white swans. show me the black one if you can
 
Last edited:
quadraphonics said:
Speaking of SAM behavior, when the hell is sandy going to get banned? Shit is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Quad, where exactly do you get the idea that a thread entitled: "SAM behavior" would be a good place to ask about Sandy getting banned?

Isn't there some sort of rule about staying on topic here?

/randwolf begins searching through dusty scrolls...
 
Randwolf said:
Quad, where exactly do you get the idea that a thread entitled: "SAM behavior" would be a good place to ask about Sandy getting banned?
Click to expand...

From the fact that the thread is in "Site feedback" and covers "SAM behavior," which is precisely the sort of behavior that sandy engages in.

Now, if it had been titled "SAM's behavior," that might be a different story. But I read the topic as referring to a type of behavior exemplified by SAM.

Randwolf said:
Isn't there some sort of rule about staying on topic here?

/randwolf begins searching through dusty scrolls...
Click to expand...

What is this, open-mic night for would-be mods?
 
S.A.M. said:
Its difficult to explain a sense of justice to those who have no concept of it. Or at least no concept of it outside their own circle. Note the implication of ethnoreligious solidarity, my dear Arab non-Muslim brother. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yes. Indeed. :m:
 
Stock up on antihist-sam-ines

Randwolf said:

Isn't there some sort of rule about staying on topic here?

/randwolf begins searching through dusty scrolls...
Click to expand...

Save yourself the sneezing, sir. And the headache from squinting through the faded hieroglyphics. I mean, of course there is, well, something of a rule. But these anti-SAMitic threads are so common that people get bored after a few pages (or, sometimes, from the outset), and the discussions starts to wander around until someone with the both the keys to the subforum and the inclination to pay attention to what's going on in the latest version notices and decides to shut it down.

Indeed, there is something of a rule against targeted threads, as well, but S.A.M. is the official unofficial exception to that rule. I mean, hell, Draqon got cranky about an inquiry regarding his genocidal outlook toward Poland and invoked the targeted-thread rule. I was able to shut that one down, but I don't have the necessary keys to enforce it here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top