quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: HURMPINBA..?
Is it an anagram?
Oh shit. Rumbled. Three words, uttered by a lil' redneck boy when he saw his ol' daddy with a lil' blacke boy in one hand and a can of petrol in the other.
[ 08 September 2003: Message edited by: Samuelnorton ]
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..."
quote:Originally posted by Gail: Oooh, when did you get so eloquent?
It's just that you've offered nothing at all to this thread. I'd actually like to hear what you have to say, as despite our differences I think some of your offerings have stimulated some good discussions on here in the past.
However, if you've really got nothing to offer than witless administrative recommendations, then I'd repeat my previous "eloquent" suggestion.
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..."
posted
I'd kind of resolved not to engage with you again Rick, as I find it singularly frustrating. Plus, if I have an argument with Ben, I will have that argument with him, not join in your attempt at a witch hunt. As it is, this thread descended into pointlessness some time ago.
Posts: 1386
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Gail: As it is, this thread descended into pointlessness some time ago.
You mean from the initial post.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Thanks, I was trying my best on some of the posts I contributed. It's a bit harsh to write off the entire thread, in my opinion.
I detect a touch of the old kovacian pride overruling the 2003 NewVacs humble and modest version, since MNIJ's unfounded "verbiage" comment the other day...
Your defence of Ben was accurate and well put; I just don't see the point of this thread at all.
Although it has confirmed a lot of things, I suppose.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden.
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I detect a touch of the old kovacian pride overruling the 2003 NewVacs humble and modest version, since MNIJ's unfounded "verbiage" comment the other day...
Like most people, I don't write within the bounds of a persona I've drawn up for a specific year. I think anyone, including you, would be a bit defensive and annoyed if they'd written a few lengthy posts and put some thought into their contributions, then had them all written off.
I won't take this any further because of course the thread isn't all about me. I hope Kovacs being "proud" isn't so last year, though.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: I think anyone, including you, would be a bit defensive and annoyed if they'd written a few lengthy posts and put some thought into their contributions, then had them all written off.
Actually kovacs, I will ammend my previous perceived harshness by flattering your professional pride and asking you if you could please clarify how to reference films in a bibliography, as it's ages since I've had to.
Would it be:
Gattaca, 1997, Nicols, A. (USA)
I can't remember what order the info should go in.
Thank you.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden.
posted
Kovacs, my first thought on reading Veep's comment was that she was referring to Rick's starting the thread in the first place. It's not like she singled you out.
Posts: 1386
| IP: Logged
posted
VP: It depends on what referencing style you are using! When I reference films (apparently I use a version of the Harvard house style) I would do it like this:
posted
Thank you, that makes sense as it fits the pattern of journal referencing.
Now this thread has been of value!
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden.
posted
Vogon, what is your problem? If you were not in favour of this thread, why bother posting to it? Would it not have been better to just ignore it completely?
Same applies to Gail.
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..."
posted
You've got a point there mate. What kind of retard would post to a thread just to complain about it's content? I'm not suprised you can't understand the mentality that would do such a thing.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: This thread: why?
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Vogon, what is your problem? If you were not in favour of this thread, why bother posting to it? Would it not have been better to just ignore it completely?
I have a problem with threads seemingly started to dissect and criticise specific posters. It's aggressive, slightly childish and unnecessary.
I genuinely didn't understand the purpose of the thread. Did you think you would win a popularity contest with ben? Did you expect everyone to post accounts of their entire posting history with ben, complete with textual analysis of every comment he's ever made towards them? What kind of precedent were you trying to set? What has this thread achieved?
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden.
quote:Originally posted by Gail: I'd kind of resolved not to engage with you again Rick, as I find it singularly frustrating. Plus, if I have an argument with Ben, I will have that argument with him, not join in your attempt at a witch hunt. As it is, this thread descended into pointlessness some time ago.
Frustrating, eh? You mean like ignoring my production of evidence after you asked for such on the "Liberia" thread? Come on, you can do better than that. You could have been gracious; instead you offer the rubbish argument that you are "frustrated". As for this thread descending into "pointlessness", a simple reading of what has been written will prove the opposite has been the case. Maybe this is the reason for your rather pathetic "close this thread" suggestion?
The reason some people on here find me "frustrating" to deal with is fairly simple: first, they don't know me, and therefore cannot differentiate between what is my personal opinion and what is the rather hammed-up "Nazi" persona I used since the very beginning of time on this board and SeeThru (RIP) before it.
Second, a good many who have expressed "frustration" - yourself, Ben among others - share this uncanny ability of not being able to see, let alone acknowledge, any decent point I might happen to make, even if it is glaringly obvious to all and sundry. It's that nasty Snorton you see, and I cannot be seen to accept anything he says as being even slightly reasonable, for we must continue to promote the idea that he is a lying, nasty, arrogrant, pompous Nazi fuck. This is why what would otherwise be a half-decent debate is quickly transformed into an exercise in mud-slinging, name-calling and general boorishness.
I find it frustrating when I counter Ben with an hour or so of my time, only for him to ignore everything I say save the lines he can twist into something else and add something like "fuck off, you spastic" at the end. But what's even more annoying is that fact that as most people probably skim-read and don't actually read into our turgid exchanges anyway, any points I might have made are lost in the mud, and the feeling that Ben has somehow emerged "victorious" develops.
Compare this to the approach taken by Kovacs for example, who remains considered and reasonable in his opinions, and willing to accept a point he might not necessarily agree with personally. I find it odd how I have never got into a single mud-slinging session with Kovacs, while Ben and I can create a ten-page thread based on our differences of opinion on the width of a regulation slice of thick-sliced bread.
It's just insane.
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..."
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: I find it odd how I have never got into a single mud-slinging session with Kovacs, while Ben and I can create a ten-page thread based on our differences of opinion on the width of a regulation slice of thick-sliced bread.
It's because you utterly fucking hate each other's guts. Hope that helps.
quote:Originally posted by Bamba: It's because you utterly fucking hate each other's guts. Hope that helps.
This is probably true. Anyway, I think this thread has probably run its course. It would only be right for Ben to have the last word. Keeping in fashion, and all that.
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..."
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: they cannot differentiate between what is my personal opinion and what is the rather hammed-up "Nazi" persona
Acknowledge any decent point I might happen to make
It's that nasty Snorton you see, and I cannot be seen to accept anything he says as being even slightly reasonable, for we must continue to promote the idea that he is a lying, nasty, arrogrant, pompous Nazi fuck.
I think this all boils down to people knowing you. Like when you've known some one for so long that you begin to lose track of their good points and only see their bad habits etc.
I'm fairly new on this board and have had a few interesting debates involving Snort's comments. I found them both interesting and with good points. However I have also read threads with Snort getting into an 'arguement' (not with me personally mind you) and some of the things you say to others can be very insulting, to the point that its hard to take them with a pinch of salt. Tact is not your strong point.
I don't think starting a thread like this helped anyone to work out the difference between Snort and Nazi. And in that point I am saying I don't think you are doing yourself any favours. It has come across in totally the wrong way to a few people as you have seen.
I'm really not meaning to be nasty or take sides, but I will say that of everyone on here your posts are the only ones using insults etc that seem to have some hidden meaning behind them (again not in my personal experience). Sure everyone gets riled in an arguement, everyone can lash out etc, but sometimes you're just a bit, well, 'nasty'. Even if it is without meaning to be.
As for Ben, in my opinion, his personality doesn't come through so strongly so I can't really comment. He seems nice, and genuine but I haven't built up as much of an opinion of him as I have for Snort.
Does that make sense? No offense meant to anyone (esp Snort as I have enjoyed many threads you've started and a few conversations that we've had before), I also understand that I am new and have never met any of you, so I may not have so much of a right to post here as others. I just wanted to say my thoughts.
-------------------- Evil isn't what you've done, it's feeling bad about it afterwards... Yield to temptation. It may not pass your way again. Posts: 3793
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by moggycookie: I think this all boils down to people knowing you. Like when you've known some one for so long that you begin to lose track of their good points and only see their bad habits etc.
Yep. I pretty much said the same thing.
quote:I'm fairly new on this board and have had a few interesting debates involving Snort's comments. I found them both interesting and with good points. However I have also read threads with Snort getting into an 'arguement' (not with me personally mind you) and some of the things you say to others can be very insulting, to the point that its hard to take them with a pinch of salt. Tact is not your strong point.
I cant really argue with the view that tact is not my strong point. However, at times I indulge in a deliberate tactlessness, Gail being the most recent recipient.
quote:I don't think starting a thread like this helped anyone to work out the difference between Snort and Nazi. And in that point I am saying I don't think you are doing yourself any favours. It has come across in totally the wrong way to a few people as you have seen.
If you are talking about Gail, VP (and the mysterious newbie "Lauren"), I wasn't really hoping for anything other than what they provided. What I'd like to ask is what did you think?
quote:I'm really not meaning to be nasty or take sides, but I will say that of everyone on here your posts are the only ones using insults etc that seem to have some hidden meaning behind them (again not in my personal experience). Sure everyone gets riled in an arguement, everyone can lash out etc, but sometimes you're just a bit, well, 'nasty'. Even if it is without meaning to be.
Again, the "nastiness" has been pretty much a controlled thing. I wouldn't read too much into my sustained outburst output last week - if you are doing this - as it was part of a exercise in open trolling tactics. The truth is that I don't really think that rodents would choose to live in Gail's nether regions, for one. There's nothing "hidden" here - many people know that Gail has (or had) a couple of pet rats that were given lots of time outside their cage.
quote:As for Ben, in my opinion, his personality doesn't come through so strongly so I can't really comment. He seems nice, and genuine but I haven't built up as much of an opinion of him as I have for Snort.
lol.
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..."
quote:I wouldn't read too much into my sustained outburst output last week - if you are doing this - as it was part of a exercise in open trolling tactics.
Okay class, how has Rickaroo just exposed himself as a nasty?
ol *ooo sir, me sir, me!*
Hand down Gail. You answered the last time.
lo *sir, sir!*
Black Mask?
o *self-delusional racist with munchausen’s-by-proxy approach to racism in others?*
Haha. No.
lO
Ben? You big-headed lunk you.
*subjecting us all to ‘a’ exercise in open trolling is extremely patronising, indicating a level of thought whereby tmo – or at least several of its members – exist to react to him. it suggests an intellectual gap and superiority that his text contributions don’t support.*
quote:Originally posted by My Name Is Joe: The US civil rights movement is more than simply 'cause and effect', as the it has had a greater influence in the UK than US racism ever has. Doesn't this mean we should consider this an equally important American trait as racism? Otherwise you are saying 'the invention of the lever was trivial, as those who invented it had to move a heavy object.'
No sense? This the purest piece of logic I've ever seen!