Suds

[Practicedummy]

Ahhh so it was because you said something anti-obama? If that's the case then I will apologize now for the previous rant. I am not too fond of having a chicago gangster as president but will make the best of it. :D

 

[bob]

Ahhh so it was because you said something anti-obama? If that's the case then I will apologize now for the previous rant. I am not too fond of having a chicago gangster as president but will make the best of it. :D

He wasn't banned for anything except being a total pain in the ass. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand. He goes on and on and never lets anything go. It gets very tiresome trying to explain something to a rock.

I still like you Phil, but you know you're a pain in the ass and no one wants to moderate your whacko posts anymore at VPF.

 

[Shockman]

Ruby. No they were locked, not moved to the AC. They may have been moved to the AC as well, but they were locked first. Nice post though. Thank you.

Practicedummy. No I have not said anything against Obama. I predicted his win in 2006, probably about the same time he was only wishing and probably thought it was a pipe dream, and if you do a search on the word Obama at VPF and go to the oldest one you will find it.

 

[Shockman]

He wasn't banned for anything except being a total pain in the ass. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand. He goes on and on and never lets anything go. It gets very tiresome trying to explain something to a rock.

I still like you Phil, but you know you're a pain in the ass and no one wants to moderate your whacko posts anymore at VPF.

Yeah I do. When I am banned. And why shouldn't I?
I did not harp on any of this stuff at VPF. I was banned for calling Pete a bigot, and I did not do that. When I pressed him about why I should be banned EVEN IF I DID call him a bigot he says that I accused him of being Mr. Staypuft. Do you know how long ago that was? Do you?

 

[bob]

Yeah I do. When I am banned. And why shouldn't I?
I did not harp on any of this stuff at VPF. I was banned for calling Pete a bigot, and I did not do that. When I pressed him about why I should be banned EVEN IF I DID call him a bigot he says that I accused him of being Mr. Staypuft. Do you know how long ago that was? Do you?

Look Phil, you were banned for two months because you were an ass and no one on staff can get you to calm down..... The following post is your first post at VPF after your 2 month ban ended in a new thread you created..... Read it out loud to yourself..... Is that the post of someone who really cares or is that the post of an asshole returning to stir up trouble? To thine own self be true....

First. Why in the hell is all the Obama threads locked? TMFP says one is enough. I can't find it. A link would be great. A bigot would do that, anyone else could not unlock them fast enough.

Second, When are you going to make up some bull**** lie about me again to ban me again?

I would also like to know who took my AC access away from me and why. Most of my post end up there, and I should have access to them.

 

[Shockman]

I did not say I was nice bob. A bigot would lock Obama threads, especially congrats. They would. Am I wrong that nobody else would? Could be, but I should be entitled to be wrong once or even twice a year don't you know.

I did not do a single thing that got me banned last time, and I wanted to say that second line. Again, it is not nice, but if nice is what you want from me, you should know better. Nice should not be a requirement for anybody. Yes, if you want to look at it your way I did do the things that got me the warnings, and those things were not nice, but I was not the only one seeing that they were each in response to things a staffer did that was either as bad or worse and done first.

Be a man Bob. You posted my first post, and Pete had already joined that conversation. If he had a problem with it he could have said so. He could have warned me that he would ban me if I was not nice. So post the last couple of posts I made. Tell us that those were not nice either. Post the last one. The one that said that the staff should be respected.

I made the third line because

I would also like to know who took my AC access away from me and why. Most of my post end up there, and I should have access to them.

 

[Shockman]

About calming down. You have it all wrong. my attitude is constant, and is a level of calm. I use over exaggerated prose, because it is written and will not get to you directly from me. I have tried to write in a more natural way, but I come across as apathetic when i do that and even I can see that.

We can talk about me being a nice person, and we can talk about me being banned. But I will not lose my drivers license if I am a bad dancer, and these two things are just as unrelated.

 

[Shockman]

Actually that is not true. My attitude does fluctuate, but not as much as normal. It is something I work on and need to continue working on.

 

[Shockman]

Bob
Look Phil, you were banned for two months because you were an ass and no one on staff can get you to calm down.

OK Bob, let's try this, it may be easier for you, I don't know. An ass. Fine, an ass. I know what an ass is and I know what it means in this context. What did I do that made you think I was being an ass, and not one half of an asinine exchange. I am the one and only that got banned, and you are saying I deserve to be kicked out of VPF. You find that easy to say as others do, but you are mum, as they are, when it comes to backing that up. That's not very respect oriented don't you think?

But again let's pretend like the staff, and that means every single member of the staff did not attack me for my making my suggestion, and that my real name was not used in an insult from a staffer, and that a staffer did not put an insult into my profile. To make it as easy as possible on you I will stop there. OK, What did the staff do as an effort to calm me down?

Again, just one thing. I see nothing and you claim they could do nothing that worked, in an effort to make others think they did something, so just one thing Bob.

 

[bob]

You go too far, Phil.... Look at this very thread for your answer.... Look how you responded to Steve for starting this thread with your name on it. You posted vulgarity, you did it at VPF over and over, the VPF staff won't accept that type of behavior on an ongoing basis, so you are banned for being a constant pain in the staff's ass. VPF edits those vulgar posts, so I guess you think they are forgotten, but alas, they are not.... Whenever you disagree with a staff decision, you go bonkers.... You are truly a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Dr Jekyll is a pretty decent person, but Mr Hyde sucks.

Bottom line.... It's not the petty shit that you are banned for.... It's the gigantic pile of crap that accumulated while you were there.... As long as that pile continues to stink, you are stuck here with Hermie.

 

[Shockman]

So in other words, I was banned for no reason at all, except for things I did in the past. Because I did not do any of those things this time.

You guys banned The Hermit too? I'm not surprised.

About the only thing you guys could possibly do that would surprise me is ban truthseekr, who's only and I mean only purpose on the site seems to be to spread bigoted ideas. But you should not ban someone for ideas you don't buy into and embrace those that have ideas that you do buy into. I know we disagree with that, and I understand you wanting to keep me out and truthseekr in, I really do, but I think it's wrong. the only other thing you could do that would surprise me is forget about the past that is gone. Some things in the past are not gone, I know, but some are, and the ones you are holding against me are, and others like Mod policy being too vague, and you always taking something away from me and calling it a chance are not.

Fuck Bob, Pete was there, posting in that same thread. He could have answered a couple of what should have been easy questions, he could have warned me that if I was not nice enough for him that that was going to be reason enough to ban me from the site. He knows I am not going to come back and learn that the ban I just served was going to be treated as unserved, or that I would want the same access that I had.

Who labeled Pete a bigot? Not me. I said a bigot would do that, and you know as well as he does and I do that a bigot would. Or did he label himself that for not giving a reason why he locked those threads and taking offense at a remark that was not made? He did not say "no, a bigot would not do that" which is the only thing that could have been in disagreement to what I said. He said I called him a bigot, and that is not true.

But even if I did call him a bigot. I don't think it is reason enough to ban someone.

So when I ask you why I should have been banned this time, or even last, you say it is because of a pile of stuff from before any of that? are you sure? is that your final answer?

What would things be like now if you had not all attacked me for making a simple suggestion, and if I was not abused by the staff in the ways I have described? Don't you ever ask yourself that? If you tell me you know then you might as well tell me what horse is going to win the triple crown next.

And why is this conversation always going back to the ban before this by my doing? Because you at least made up a reason then. You had to leave out the fact the staff started every one of the problems, and you guys had absolutely no qualms about doing something like that, but it did make you able to state a reason. This time I have nothing. Not a good reason. Not a bad reason. There is no reason.

If you are so sure that I am going to do something negative, even if something negative is not done to me, then why don't you let that happen and ban me then? I would agree with you then. Why? You would. I know you would, if you really was so sure that it would happen, but that's not your agenda is it? Your agenda is keeping me banned reason or not. Letting me back only when you are itching to ban me again. It sucks Bob, and it reflects on the administration to many people, some even brave enough to hint at the fact. But this shows EVERYBODY what is going to happen to people you do not like, or would dare to say do not like you, doesn't it?

These comments are directed more towards the administration than any one person.

 

[bob]

No one is banned except you.... Hermie has no warnings, he just feels left out, so I try to include him, I'm such an old softie.

truthseekr is treading thin ice....

You made no effort Phil, you can talk until you're blue in the face, but you tried to have it only your way. You shit on Val more than once, treated him like dirt, then you act surprised when he later retaliates against you? You can't treat people like shit and then expect them to do favors for you, life doesn't work that way..... I understand you and I try to tell you like it is, but you don't listen. There is a limit to what a person can do, there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. You reached your limit and you crossed the line. WTF more can one say?

 

[Shockman]

What did I ever do to Val?

WTF more can one say?

One could say exactly what I did that was crossing your line. One could refuse to as well, couldn't one? Even at the cost of losing a member.

I was not banned when I posted anything in that thread. I was banned after I stopped.

I have a right to express my mood. And you should want to know my mood. Pete had a choice to make. Ignore me, Answer the questions, or ban me for daring to ask for the answer. I know you think he made the right choice. I'm not so sure he does though, and I certainly don't.

 

[Shockman]

'Cleaver, you are almost always here. Perhaps you would like to take that one. What did I do?

 

[Shockman]

It's not a hard question Tom. Granted, it is not as easy as pressing a thank you button, but it's a pretty easy question.

 

[da_prez]

i'll be the first to admit, i am not 100% on what went on between you and val,
but didn't the dust-up begin over this post, that is hosted right here on this site, for anyone to see ?

http://www.pinballnirvana.com/forums/showpost.php?p=46159&postcount=84

 

[bob]

So why don't you take that post out of that thread, Start a new fucking thread, in your own fucking name, and move all the irrelevant crap that follows to that new post, you fucking son of a bitch. You know how much I hate these fucking threads showing up that I didn't start and they be in my name.

You can post irrelevant crap, but I can't?

Suck my cock you piece of shit

This is what I consider crossing the line Phil.... Steve is an admin at this forums and yet you diss him like that? For splitting a thread? No one likes to see their name as the thread starter of a thread that has been moderated and split into a new thread, but no one goes where you go to show their displeasure. It's going too far....

You posted that kind of crap at VPF also.... You have been warned many times, you have been given many chances, yet you still don't get it?

 

[Shockman]

'prez,
I don't know, that's why I'm asking. It seems too far along the time line to me. Not that post, but the using of that post to insult me using my real name. It seems he has had it in for me before that.

To clear this issue up. Yes, I can use my real and full name if I want to. Obviously, others can do it as well. But when it is used at another site and in the form of an insult, well obviously that is OK too, but it is not OK with me.

I was very polite to Tom when he did that. I told him I wanted it down. This is what Bob calls wanting it my way, but in fact it is wanting it the right way. I don't want wrong things to be done because it is my way. I want right things to be done. It did not upset me so much that he did that, but that he refused to fix it. That is inexcusable. It's not unforgivable, but without asking, it will surly be a long time to be forgiven, and with asking is done right then.

That Pete does not care, or Bob thinks I deserved it is preposterous. That post was to my friends, and included all of you, Bob, Tom, Pete, everyone, and was posted about 6 days after I first thought I was going to survive this. It did not include anything rude, and was actually mushy for me, but I was drugged out of my gourd.

Yes, because that was done by an official staffer, I want the staff to apologize for it. Not for what Tom said but for the support of it. Bob is excluded from this because he did do the deleting of it while Tom was still trying to tell me that is was not only right in his opinion, but proper. But they won't even use it as a reason to overlook the reaction that and the profile incident caused and instead banned me.

There is no one that would have felt Ok with that and that includes those that recommended, asked for, supported, and implemented my ban.

 

[Shockman]

You can post irrelevant stuff, but I can't?
OK, you are the staff after all

Oh, put it back into your pants Bob, you know I'm just making a point.

 

[Pop Bumper Pete]

Yes, Valamir posted your name, once
it stayed up on the site for less than an hour
he has not done it again
Val learned his lesson

Shockman makes vulgar posts
he makes them often
he gets disiplined for making them
he continues to make vulgar posts
Shockman cannot learn lesson

 

[PcwaG]

I did not say I was nice bob. A bigot would lock Obama threads, especially congrats. They would. Am I wrong that nobody else would? Could be, but I should be entitled to be wrong once or even twice a year don't you know.

Shock, here again you call Pete a bigot.

Let me break down the post from VPF so maybe you'll understand what people mean.

First. Why in the hell is all the Obama threads locked? TMFP says one is enough. ok, here, you show that the Obama threads are locked, and by stating TMFP says one is enough you point at him as the thread locker upper'

I can't find it. A link would be great. You showing frustration, nothing real big here

A bigot would do that, After naming TMFP as the thread locker, you exclaim that thread lockers, IE TMFP, are bigots

anyone else could not unlock them fast enough. yet no one did and finally.....

Second, When are you going to make up some bull**** lie about me again to ban me again? IE Hey guys, I just called someone a bigot and am going around the censor for the board, so could you please ban me again?

First day back from a ban, you begin it by insulting a staff member and cussing, well done, enjoy your new ban!

 

[Shockman]

I'm going to assume you are smarter than your post suggests, so bare with me if I am right, and just skip the rest if you think I am wrong.

For your logic to work I would have had to say "Only a bigot would do that" and for my logic to work you are going to have to take my word for it that I was talking about stifling Obama threads and not the general action of locking threads or the action of locking that thread.

I watched the threads evolve from the start. They were locked before they were merged. TMFP locked them and pointed to another thread that was locked. At least one other Obama threads was locked with a post from TMFP that was not merged.

I in no way shape or form call TheManFromPOST a bigot.

That is not going around the word censor. It is using it head on, for it's intended purpose. If I wanted to go around the word censor the word censor would not have happened. But I was not out to get myself banned, I was expressing my opinion that the ban had no reason given that was not bullshit. I should not be banned for giving my opinion.

I should have not been banned if I said "TMFP, you are a bigot, and there is no other way to look at it, and nothing you say can change the fact that you are a bigot" And then I would not have fished, and said that anyone else would unlock them. That line I admit I should not have wrote. It did put him on the spot, or at least that was the intent, and was mean. Meaner by far than the bullshit line, but I was upset for doing a ban after my avatar was taken down after he hinted that it would be good for me to have it down, not that it would not make any difference. As far as I'm concerned, I should have been able to put it back up if I was going to be banned anyway. But as mean as it was, it is no reason to take away my membership for.

 

[Shockman]

Why do you want me to kiss your ass? Yes that is a requirement, and that is clear. I will not do that, and still, I should not be banned. You should not even want me to do that, and still you want me banned.

I have to be nice. I have to be an ass kisser, I can not report a post, complain, question, give my opinion, unless it jives, or give suggestions. I can not express my emotions, and I can not request equity.

Positive emotions bring bliss and negative emotions bring knowledge, nothing is bad about anything within us.

 

[PcwaG]

For your logic to work I would have had to say "Only a bigot would do that"

A cow goes moo.
Only a cow goes moo.
Not much of a difference there.

That is not going around the word censor. It is using it head on, for it's intended purpose. If I wanted to go around the word censor the word censor would not have happened. But I was not out to get myself banned, I was expressing my opinion that the ban had no reason given that was not bullshit. I should not be banned for giving my opinion.

Cussing is, to some, considered disrespecting your fellow enthusiasts, which breaks rule one.
Since your goal was such, then what can you expect?

If your goal is not to be banned, then why continue the attitude that repeatedly puts you there?

 

[Shockman]

OK, that was a hell of a line, wasn't it?

It's true, of a person, but there is exceptions. Just like a computer virus in not within a properly functioning computer, nothing bad is inherently within a person. Of course a person being the emptiness of the mind and nothing to do with the body. Relax. Empty of, not empty. Empty of anything that can be measured, dated, or seen on the inside from without, except hopefully by yourself.

The exceptions are damaged minds and the only damaged mind I can think of that is evident is a criminal mind. I don't see it as evident in a mean spirited mind, a mentally retarded mind, or a mind damaged by disease (we just don't know). It seems evident in collective minds, but I'm too ignorant on such matters. I can tell you though that the term radical Islam is ridiculous. Islam is radical by rule, as an example of that.