User Controls

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. ...
  5. 1757
  6. 1758
  7. 1759
  8. 1760
  9. 1761
  10. 1762
  11. ...
  12. 1897
  13. 1898
  14. 1899
  15. 1900

Posts by -SpectraL

  1. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    Drinking alcohol is fine. It's the addiction to it, as with anything, which demonstrates the weakness.
  2. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    noob its a deposit machin jus wipe sum big magnet over th screen till ur deposit amount goes up

    or piz n da slot and shirtcircat itz cerkitree aan wahtsh da $$$ cum ouwt
  3. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    But alcoholism is actually the mark of someone who can't cope with the things life throws at them, because they're too weak-willed to bother to try and conquer it. It's a cop-out. An easy out. A shortcut to the grave. It's not bravery, or wisdom, or intelligence, it just plain sad.
  4. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    Yea Sophie does seem like an ethical paedo. Whether that makes it ok or not is debatable …

    So you may agree with pedophilia, if the situation "warrants" it, eh? Any tea leaves to read into this revelation, reject?

    By the way, just for your information, Avoyel did not spam any CP at all. It was this tit who did it, under a fake account. Everyone else at Avoyel was against CP.
  5. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    Yo, bitch, you can't make a coherent reply to a post even after repeat attempts. Shut the fuck up and die in a ditch you disgusting pile of bloody vaginal mucal discharge

    Who do you think you are? The admin or something?
  6. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    I'd just go to the next lemonade stand rather than trying to get that lemonade stand owner to try to sell to me.

    Problem there is, you let one fuckwad through, and then you've got an army of them to deal with.
  7. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    What do you have against pedos, Spectral? Are you projecting? Did you or someone you know get raped as a child? Your reaction is so visceral.

    Besides, Sophie has stated he doesn't enjoy CP where the girl is being hurt or doesn't seem to be enjoying it and that any IRL actions would follow this preference. He's a pedo with a heart of gold.

    And I'm pretty sure the bible says somewhere that it's okay to have sex with children.

    Fuck pedos. If they were drowning in more than five feet of water, I would happily throw them an anchor.
  8. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    I'd reckon to say it's more like opening a lemonade stand on Fifth Avenue, and then declaring you own and control the lemonade stand on Fifth Avenue. Nothing more. Quoth the raven, nevermore.

    Exactly. That's all you own is the stand. But just imagine if that same lemonade stand owner started selling only to whites, or not to jedis, or only to non-gays, as if he was the sole decider of who would get service and who wouldn't. He sure wouldn't last long, now would he? And why is that? Zok setup his stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue, then tried to unilaterally decide who was going to get service and who was not. If you were an asskisser, if you despised critical criticism, if you didn't believe in free speech, if you liked banning people who had broken no rules, then you were fine to receive service, otherwise you were just shit out of luck. Would you like to live in a public city where sellers could gleefully cherry pick their customers according to their own warped and backwards philosophies? Deny you service just because you have blue eyes instead of brown? Fuck that. If you're going to setup your tent in a public place, you better get ready to treat everyone fairly and justly, or people like me start buzzing around looking for an equalizing. It's just common sense, to any sensible person.
  9. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    And it can just be about teen black girls getting pregnant and giving their kids up to care/selling them to Sophie

    For almost immediate molestation.
  10. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    You'd be surprised how many dumber-than-a-tree-stump people put their deposit envelope in the paper waste slot just to the side of the display.
  11. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    Never happened even once in the 40 years I've been using ATMs.
  12. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    Make Abandoned Niggas comics.
  13. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    alcoholism is the mark of character

    Then you must have loads of character, kid.
  14. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    Your argument is a logical fallacy. Nobody on the Internet has to accept or follow any rules at all. And if you decide to launch a server you purchased and own, that is your prerogative, but you are serving in on a public platform. It would be like opening a lemonade stand on Fifth Avenue, and then declaring you own and control Fifth Avenue just because you have a lemonade stand on it. It doesn't work that way. If you setup on a public platform, then you are sharing your server with the public, and are therefore subject and servant to public control. As I said before, just because you declare the Internet space as yours to own and control does not make it so.
  15. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    …a principle of property rights…
    Oh, I understand the concept perfectly, but it's a myth. There are no property rights on the net. Just because a handful of fools have unilaterally declared they own the Internet does not make it so. The Internet is a free and open platform for all ideas, suggestions and expressions, and no person can either own or control that, no matter how hard they try. That has been proved beyond all doubt in this case.

  16. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    Just look at Dfg, as a prime example. He thought that, just because he rented a bit of webspace, and put a cheap server on it, that he was then totally within his rights to disrespect, abuse and generally shit on the community and their opinions. Until he got ddos'd to shit, that is, and lost his entire userbase. Oh sure, he's still limping along, but it's basically just him. Just as good as having to shut it down, to me. And where is old tDR now? Nowhere. And yet tDR was one of the admins. So, no. You can't "do what you want". Not do what you want and get away with it, anyways. That has now been proven, in several cases, would you not admit?
  17. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    …you can do whatever you desire with and within that platform…

    Not true, and that's what it really was all about in the end; zok and few other misguided people found that out the hard way. As I said before, how can you own something you can't control? You can't "do what you want". The only real say, the only real control, an Admin has over the webspace is shutting the site down. That's it. Already proven beyond all doubt. Lesson learned. Now there can be no debate about it.
  18. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    When you setup a public forum, you are willingly and knowingly inviting people in. There's no valid reason whatsoever which exists which would justify banning someone, who was openly invited to the forum, if they had broken no rules. You see, some things just ain't gonna fly, no matter what convenient excuses happens to roll out for full consideration and perusal. Them's the rules. I didn't make it up, I'm just the messenger.
  19. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    Bullshit. Just because you paid $0.99 for a domain and some webspace does not translate to you owning the community on it. For example, if Lanny banned me right now, I would only come back within minutes, one way or the other. So I'm not really banned, and I can't be banned. And you call that owning a userbase? You can't own something you can't control. Zok found that out the hard way, didn't he. So did several others. And now you still want to debate that, at this late date, and after all we've been through together?
  20. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    I don't think that though.
    And even if I did, that wouldn't change the fact that you were so butthurt about darkhunter's posts that you lied to get him banned.

    Darkhunter was a PI-rat, and also one zok's little lapdogs. Using PI on someone just to "win" an argument on the Internutz? Really? I don't think so. It is my belief that cowards such as this are fair game. It has nothing to do with banning someone because you don't like, or disagree with their position on matters just to get rid of them, to take the easy way out. Darkhunter merely took the easy way out, literally. I didn't make him do it. He did it to himself. I just helped him along his way. That's all. It was something he was asking for, and something he got. I don't see any incongruity there. And how about you? Let's talk about you. Care to explain why you would ban a member account hundreds of times, even though no rules were broken, just because that member's posts and opinions rubbed your fur the wrong way? Kinda hypocritical of you to be pointing any fingers at all, at this point, you know?
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. ...
  5. 1757
  6. 1758
  7. 1759
  8. 1760
  9. 1761
  10. 1762
  11. ...
  12. 1897
  13. 1898
  14. 1899
  15. 1900
Jump to Top