Would the cowardly include those who leave then return under a sock puppet name, pretending to be a different person, perchance?
Spin off thread: satire versus insult
- Thread starter Baron Max
- Start date
- Status
Would the cowardly include those who leave then return under a sock puppet name, pretending to be a different person, perchance?
Cranky? Hell no. I've been having loads of fun in a different thread.
Bells. Think very carefully. One has a different internet address, one changes ones name using that different address.
That implies that before, one used a different email address and a different name.
It's not really rocket science, you know.
I'd completely forgotten how much fun it was possible to have, here.
"you can ring my be....eee....eeells, you can ring my bells..."
Nope. A name change is a name change, and the reasons for it are only limited by what a single observer perceives them to be.
I'm the Wolf, laddie. Hi.
Still a wet blanket?
* edit - I'm completely wrong. The cowardly would indeed include those who left and then returned under a different name pretending to be someone else. Zounds, what slipshod cogitation on my part.
Bells
Staff member
So I see. Ah yes. Is the concept of God innate or not.
Oh wow. Really? Gosh, you are so clever.
I am well aware that you are not new. I was merely amusing myself to pass the time.
/Snort.
Salaud!
:bawl:
Yep. Fun.
I am, rather.Oh wow. Really? Gosh, you are so clever.
Of course you were! *chuckle*
I nearly cried, too. Ding, dong... ding... *sob*
Religious people ridicule themselves by believing in ridiculous ideas.
I get all that. I thought James' list was pretty funny. I know people who not only hold those beliefs, but the attitudes as well. But Baron isn't protesting the content, he's protesting James being mean after he has been scolded many times for being mean. The only difference, as Baron can tell, is that James is being mean to people he disagrees with, but when Baron is mean to people he disagrees with, he gets in trouble.
There are pockets here and there, but you have to dig really deep into them past the fluff and lint, the old pennies and frayed ends of love notes long since discarded. There are too many people here who find the lint interesting enough to ponder what sweater it came from or busy themselves counting the pennies and determining their value. A waste. Mostly, it's misspent energy on things that should best be ignored. There is simply not enough passion in the re-read of a old frayed love note once the players are long forgotten, don't forget.
But it sounds like just a job for an antihero like yourself. I am particularly fond of your choice of name upon your return, by the way. Your cuts mark the stone cuts in others, and occasionally you find nothing but more rock or coal, especially now. On the rare occasion you find a glint of brilliance, you must keep at it to form it into something a little more worthy than the sand that marks the sea bed. Many of the more interesting folks around here seem to sit in wait, as if watching to see if the clock will actually fall off the nail or if will alone could somehow make the whole damned timepiece begin to utter it's tick-tick once more. On the edge of our seats, we barely blink now... sniffing the stale air and willing ourselves to hope. Some even guard the room waiting for movement as if they left there would be a ghost town and they are partially right since they are the bearers of the tome of history here. For some, it's a death march for skeletons long since buried but the return of people like you charge the air with the kind of energy we used to have in this rotting place. It's brittle bone, and rather sad.
So throw the switch, Wolf. If you light it, they will come.
Last edited:
Last night I was drawn to the TV by my voyeuristic teenager. 'Look, look penises on primetime' or similar was the rallying cry. God forgive me it worked; such a rare, rare occurance as is. I found myself glued.
And there they were a host of golden penises, of various lengths and widths, each one, rather helpfully I thought, had a ruler superimposed upon it. A gaggle of red-faced young fellows was paraded before said penises and asked which they thought was most reperesentative of the Great British penis. The boys identified the longest donger (seven inches flaccid). In 'reality' the average length of the Great British penis is 4 inches in length; girth did not warrant a mention. Some of the fellows looked distinctly relieved; others looked a little crestfallen.
Next, out of sight and earshot of their peers, each boy was asked which one they wished was theirs (oh breathe in the science here people!). Unsurprisingly (though the host appeared shocked) each boy wished the 7 incher was his. Had I been the host of the 'show' I would have gotten each fellow to get his own out so that I and 50 million other views could do a quick comparison but I digress.
Anyway then each boy was asked to explain why they felt ownership of a big penis was important. What was the most representative answer one might suppose at this stage. Succinctly:
'Well it's something to boast to the others about.'
And there they were a host of golden penises, of various lengths and widths, each one, rather helpfully I thought, had a ruler superimposed upon it. A gaggle of red-faced young fellows was paraded before said penises and asked which they thought was most reperesentative of the Great British penis. The boys identified the longest donger (seven inches flaccid). In 'reality' the average length of the Great British penis is 4 inches in length; girth did not warrant a mention. Some of the fellows looked distinctly relieved; others looked a little crestfallen.
Next, out of sight and earshot of their peers, each boy was asked which one they wished was theirs (oh breathe in the science here people!). Unsurprisingly (though the host appeared shocked) each boy wished the 7 incher was his. Had I been the host of the 'show' I would have gotten each fellow to get his own out so that I and 50 million other views could do a quick comparison but I digress.
Anyway then each boy was asked to explain why they felt ownership of a big penis was important. What was the most representative answer one might suppose at this stage. Succinctly:
'Well it's something to boast to the others about.'
An entire race = people who maintain a clearly flawed scientific viewpoint?
I fail to see the link. You're full of hot air, Baron.
What's wrong with ridiculing creationists? If I remember well their literary works aren't that flattering for all the "heathens" either.
You reap what you sow.
As Gandhi said: An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind.
There are limits, ofcourse; one can turn the other cheek, but only only has 2 cheeks. But when it comes to words online, I, atleast, never find the need to get crude.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
There isn't anything wrong with ridiculing the creationists Psychotropicpuppy, some are even masochisitic enough to get off on it, persecution complex, Baron is just testing James searching for some non-existent guidlines.
Lovely. Invigorating.
Challenging.
You are throwing some pressure on me here.
I am wondering if I am still up to it. Circumstances, you see. Happenings.
The Past. Blah.
Blah.
If only it were blah.
A mind asleep sometimes finds it difficult to wake. A mind bruised even more so. We will see how things go. I will need to be patient with me. And stern.
I feel as though I should know who you are, but I do not. There are times when it is better that way. I am curious, but I am sure you will not disappoint me by letting me know if we have "met" before.
Exterminate!!!
Registered Member
I'm getting shivers as i sense sage wisdom long past. Like walking through an overgrown temple in the rain forest.
Bells
Staff member
They have already started to come.
I think Wolf turned on the plane spotting light. Like a beam to the heavens.
There are guidelines and even some rules; they may be a bit too vague, but they do exist. I personally believe I got some idea as to what they are in this thread:
Rules concerning what constitutes a personal attack are too vague
The guidelines are arbitrary. Whether a personal attack is punished depends on a number of factors, including:
- Who makes the attack.
- Who is on the receiving end of the attack.
- The moderator to whom it is reported.
- Who makes the attack.
- Who is on the receiving end of the attack.
- The moderator to whom it is reported.
I agree; however, the thread I mentioned showed that there is actually an official 6 word list of censurable terms and Bells did give the nod for several others that I mentioned. They have to be used in a personal attack manner, not banter and ofcourse different mods may have different ideas as to what constitutes 'banter', but it is atleast a framework on which to build. I think that the term 'delusional' should be added to the list though, coming to think of it; I reported the term used against someone recently in the parapsychology forum, not sure if it'll get any positive results, we'll see.
I think that calling a poster 'dishonest' should also be considered a personal attack. In fact, I'd argue that 'dishonest' is a more offensive label than 'dickhead' or 'fuckwad'.
- Status