SR did you ever admit to being wrong?
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
SR_ said:
Wow, what a racist asshole you are making yourself out to be!
SR_ said:
For the record, I was running AGAINST Dixie and his little 'underground' that he had going on. I purposely chose 'No Label' so that I could be part of that group, and try and put a thorn in the side of his 'movement'. You made it harder for me to do that by being retarded and posting u2u's. At first, I thought they were funny, but then it got so out of hand that you had to ban people because you thought they were making you look bad. Most of us were just laughing at everything that was going on, it was like a soap opera. That isn't really 'destroying' your board, its bringing in more activity. I couldn't resist! Maybe you should have had faith in your board members, because some of them were doing what they could to make sure things went as planned, but now I see how you discount that and have no faith in us. Thanks!
SR_
Junior Member
Damocles said:
Damo, this is a message forum. People come here to post messages. You have a rule about posting the same subject thread. You have NO RULE against USING the "POST NEW TOPIC" or "POST REPLY" features as much as you want. And Im not the one being obtuse, I put forward a new idea and told people to run, you created a new message board...im guessing you need to tell people to post? or are we supposed to stare at it? Its meant to be used for posting Damo, and I can utilize that feature a million different ways to shit on this place if wanted too. You then going to act like you didnt ask me to post here? That offering me the ability to register my own account, on a message board, and offering "post new topic" and "post reply" to me isnt inviting, IF NOT insisting that I do just that?
Is this against the rules?
I dont see it posted anywhere, you have offered me this option as a feature damo. Are you saying that posting on a message board isnt encouraged by yourself?
Youre not being honest.
What if every post was done in this manner?
be honest, i could post like this in every thread you or anyone else ever decided to post on. There is no rule against it, the features are available, and people normally dont create their own message boards without encouraging posting by default. I could also post long documents that I feel are relevant in every thread, or create my own if I desired. None of that is against your rules damo.
do you get it now?
SR
I, however, have not ENCOURAGED this activity (which I have consistently mentioned that you did encourage them). You did encourage them to run for office and even suggested U2U as a part of their campaigns. Then when they used U2U to set up a campaign run you suddenly didn't like it. That they were running as a FINO wasn't anything new to a campaign in politics, it happens. You opened up the site to true site politics and they used the tools you gave them and suggested....SR_ said:
I do get it. However you suggested posting the word n*gger over and over... Which was a violation. And if you insisted on doing this consistently I would have to put forward a new rule. The only reason that I will add to the rules list is when I find, or remember, an issue with another board or have an issue with a poster...
Immanuel
Junior Member
SR_ said:
Where did I say he got to fix anything? I don't think I did. The point was that he was working within your rules to affect a change. He didn't hurt anything except maybe your pride.
SR_ said:
Ruin the council? Well, maybe you think it would have ruined the council but no one else does. Most of us think that you screwed it up by requiring an unanimous decision. Again, your pride is the only thing that got in the way.
Immie
SR_
Junior Member
I, however, have not ENCOURAGED this activity (which I have consistently mentioned that you did encourage them). You did encourage them to run for office and even suggested U2U as a part of their campaigns. Then when they used U2U to set up a campaign run you suddenly didn't like it. That they were running as a FINO wasn't anything new to a campaign in politics, it happens. You opened up the site to true site politics and they used the tools you gave them and suggested....
I did not encourage them to try and gridlock the council Damo. There were plenty of people that were going to run, and use the u2u, using the u2u wasnt a problem at all. I dont care what they use to run or campaign, IT WAS THE ENERGY SPENT TO BREAK IT that bothered me.
And again, if youre going to be obtuse theres no sense in wasting my time. You ENCOURAGE people to post here damo, if not why is it all designed for people to post messages here? How come the WYSIWYG manager is at the top of the reply interface if you arent encouraging us to use them?
Are you saying because you havent said "Use the bold and sizing feature and collor feature" that you arent encouraging us to use them?
I do get it. However you suggested posting the word n*gger over and over... Which was a violation. And if you insisted on doing this consistently I would have to put forward a new rule. The only reason that I will add to the rules list is when I find, or remember, an issue with another board or have an issue with a poster...
Creating new threads, thats whats posted anyway 3. Please do not flood the board with multiple same-subject Threads. I can post hower well within the rules.
You can keep posting new rules as they come, and I did no different. I said that anyone trying to ruin the features will be banned. I did not encourage anyone to ruin the features.
Obviously if you were being honest you would recognize that this dance could be done over and over until members just say "sorry damo, this place just sucks with all the crap here, im leaving", and you would have decision. Either capitulate to my demands and i would stop, or ban me and fix what i have used FULLY offered to me within this framework.
again, this is your property Damo, its not up to me to decide for you how it will work and how it wont.
SR
I did not encourage them to try and gridlock the council Damo. There were plenty of people that were going to run, and use the u2u, using the u2u wasnt a problem at all. I dont care what they use to run or campaign, IT WAS THE ENERGY SPENT TO BREAK IT that bothered me.
And again, if youre going to be obtuse theres no sense in wasting my time. You ENCOURAGE people to post here damo, if not why is it all designed for people to post messages here? How come the WYSIWYG manager is at the top of the reply interface if you arent encouraging us to use them?
Are you saying because you havent said "Use the bold and sizing feature and collor feature" that you arent encouraging us to use them?
I do get it. However you suggested posting the word n*gger over and over... Which was a violation. And if you insisted on doing this consistently I would have to put forward a new rule. The only reason that I will add to the rules list is when I find, or remember, an issue with another board or have an issue with a poster...
Creating new threads, thats whats posted anyway 3. Please do not flood the board with multiple same-subject Threads. I can post hower well within the rules.
You can keep posting new rules as they come, and I did no different. I said that anyone trying to ruin the features will be banned. I did not encourage anyone to ruin the features.
Obviously if you were being honest you would recognize that this dance could be done over and over until members just say "sorry damo, this place just sucks with all the crap here, im leaving", and you would have decision. Either capitulate to my demands and i would stop, or ban me and fix what i have used FULLY offered to me within this framework.
again, this is your property Damo, its not up to me to decide for you how it will work and how it wont.
SR
SR_
Junior Member
Where did I say he got to fix anything? I don't think I did. The point was that he was working within your rules to affect a change. He didn't hurt anything except maybe your pride.
immie, again im talking with damo about the same thing. read up.
Ruin the council? Well, maybe you think it would have ruined the council but no one else does. Most of us think that you screwed it up by requiring an unanimous decision. Again, your pride is the only thing that got in the way.
yes the stated goal was to ruin the council in order to change it.
if you feel like its someone pride that allows them to be offended when others try to dictate what you will do with your own property, i guess thats fine, it doesnt really matter what the motivation is. If youre going to support the validity of allowing someone to tell you what you will do with your own property, then i can only say, get ready your life will be hard.
I however dont agree with immie.
SR
immie, again im talking with damo about the same thing. read up.
Ruin the council? Well, maybe you think it would have ruined the council but no one else does. Most of us think that you screwed it up by requiring an unanimous decision. Again, your pride is the only thing that got in the way.
yes the stated goal was to ruin the council in order to change it.
if you feel like its someone pride that allows them to be offended when others try to dictate what you will do with your own property, i guess thats fine, it doesnt really matter what the motivation is. If youre going to support the validity of allowing someone to tell you what you will do with your own property, then i can only say, get ready your life will be hard.
I however dont agree with immie.
SR
SR_ said:
I honestly liked the idea of the council. I thought it unique and can't wait to see it in implementation. Look. The whole myriad of long debate was caused because you gave the power of veto to every member of the council, they realized it and recognized it and attempted to use the tools you gave them to effect the change they wanted. They were encouraged to run and be a part of that council. Then they were told that every council decision was essentially a suggestion rather than had any force whatsoever. I supported it fully, was going to run...
The whole debate is really over. You created and implemented a new rule for the site. Just as I would do... You also took power from the minority by making it majority rather than unanimous votes...
I think you should run your site as you see fit, and supported it from the beginning. I am just stunned you are surprised by those who wanted to do exactly as I predicted would happen. Gridlock the council...
SR_
Junior Member
The whole myriad of long debate was caused because you gave the power of veto to every member of the council, they realized it and recognized it and attempted to use the tools you gave them to effect the change they wanted.
FINALLY and little honesty.
This was my problem, the purpose of the council was and is not for personal gain, but these people decided that to satisfy their own personal desires, they would ruin it in order to change it.
I think you should run your site as you see fit, and supported it from the beginning. I am just stunned you are surprised by those who wanted to do exactly as I predicted would happen. Gridlock the council...
And as a site owner now you should recognize that what you see fit, may not be "fit" for me as a member, and I should not feel obligated to tell you "change to what I see fit, or else".
all message boards, all systems, offer the ability for users to be disruptive and in effect destructive. I just feel like this board is your property and I nor anyone else is entitled to use the features here to cause it harm in order TO MY WAY. This is your property, not mine, it doesnt matter how much I may feel like the other members support me or how badly i may think its right, its still your decision.
SR
FINALLY and little honesty.
This was my problem, the purpose of the council was and is not for personal gain, but these people decided that to satisfy their own personal desires, they would ruin it in order to change it.
I think you should run your site as you see fit, and supported it from the beginning. I am just stunned you are surprised by those who wanted to do exactly as I predicted would happen. Gridlock the council...
And as a site owner now you should recognize that what you see fit, may not be "fit" for me as a member, and I should not feel obligated to tell you "change to what I see fit, or else".
all message boards, all systems, offer the ability for users to be disruptive and in effect destructive. I just feel like this board is your property and I nor anyone else is entitled to use the features here to cause it harm in order TO MY WAY. This is your property, not mine, it doesnt matter how much I may feel like the other members support me or how badly i may think its right, its still your decision.
SR
SR_ said:
Finally? I have been honest and upfront throughout. I stated that they wanted to put forward their own agenda using the framework you created from the beginning.
Right, and you created a new rule and enforced it...
I have recognized that from the beginning. I know I can't please everyone. I'm not even going to try.
Immanuel
Junior Member
Maybe you should look at it like this, SR, other people saw flaws in your system. They attempted to tell you what those flaws were. Your pride kept you from listening to what they had to say and you ignored them. They then took the initiative to show you what would happen with your system under your very rules.
They were not out to run (run not ruin) your site. They were simply attempting to demonstrate to you the problems with your council.
Your attitude towards their suggestions was a slap in the face for them.
I supported and support your efforts at FP.com. As Damo, I too hope to see it implemented and wish to participate. I'm looking forward to it, but I do not fault Dixie and gang for working within your system to affect change. Eventually, you would have seen the need for change anyway.
Immie
They were not out to run (run not ruin) your site. They were simply attempting to demonstrate to you the problems with your council.
Your attitude towards their suggestions was a slap in the face for them.
I supported and support your efforts at FP.com. As Damo, I too hope to see it implemented and wish to participate. I'm looking forward to it, but I do not fault Dixie and gang for working within your system to affect change. Eventually, you would have seen the need for change anyway.
Immie
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
SR_ said:
Why is it, whenever someone makes a valid and legitimate point you can't refute, you immediately go to the Bag of Labels on them? Can you explain why I am a "fool" who context is lost on? Can you explain why I am "retarded" or "ignorant" in what I stated? Or are you just unable to refute what I stated with anything substanative?
SR_
Junior Member
Finally? I have been honest and upfront throughout. I stated that they wanted to put forward their own agenda using the framework you created from the beginning.
asked you last nite to what end, what they were trying to accomplish and you wouldnt come out and say "TO CHANGE IT TO WHAT THEY WANTED". instead you went into some deal about conservative ideology to restrict change or something.
SR
asked you last nite to what end, what they were trying to accomplish and you wouldnt come out and say "TO CHANGE IT TO WHAT THEY WANTED". instead you went into some deal about conservative ideology to restrict change or something.
SR
SR_ said:
Right, they didn't like the change their agenda was to create gridlock to restrict the change. It is the ultimate in conservative response... Read back through the thread. It was an agenda, they worked toward it. They worked within the framework that you gave them...
I have been honest throughout and direct. That you don't like my interpretation doesn't change that.
SR_
Junior Member
Dixie said:
sure. the government set up for the United States is representative of people who LIVE IN STATES. Thats why its called the United States, and we choose our representation based on that context. It servers the interests of the states, some of whom are industrial, some are agricultural, some live where there are hurricanes, some live where there are wild fires. The system is set up to address this. That is the context.
On a message board we're all anonymous, our interests lie in our ideologies, that is the context in which we come to debate. We agree with most of our own ideology most of the time, and disagree with other ideologies most of the time, it is the context in which we are split. Our ideologies are our natural states, it where we "choose" to reside in the aspect of a political message forum context.
When having a body that sits as an executive over a message forum, it would be nice to reflect the context of that message forum accurately. And really most people accept the natural split as being forced. meaning i dont ever you whining that you cant vote for the guy of integrity running in New York, you live in Alabama and have accepted the fact that maybe no one worth a spit is running in alabama but youre still forced to vote for one, or not at all.
The same is true for SC at FP.com, we are split into districts based on the context of why we're there and who we're electing to serve for those districts. Not everyone can vote outside their district. You whine because your forced into a district by choice, but i never hear you complain about being forced into a district to vote for by moving to a certain district or state when voting for any politician.
I guess the reason for this is that you just never thought about it, or have and just didnt understand it.
SR
You dont comprehend that because its too complicated for you.
SR_
Junior Member
Damocles said:
you just wrote a few mintues ago they realized it and recognized it and attempted to use the tools you gave them to effect the change they wanted. Dixie is on the record saying as much.
its like youre saying that they worked for change, and that change was that they did not want change, so its somehow different. ITS NOT DIFFERENT.
come on damo. I just demonstrated how the features of this board are used to affect change, at some point you have to decide that this is either your property and you dont have to submit to the disruptive actions of any member USING THE ESTABLISHED framework or else, or you youre saying that you dont have a right to do as you wish with your own property.
As I just said, you made a new rule yesterday whereas members cannot pose as other members. I may not like that change, I may decide to post all of my post in the largest boldest font in the color yellow giving everyone a headache and making the threads hard to follow. Im just using the framework, yet i dont feel its right to use that framework to change something I DONT OWN.
SR
SR_
Junior Member
Immanuel said:
ok lets say they were demonstrating the problems of the council. What problem would there be. If people didnt agree on any issues, i see no problem. If we never labled anyone a troll, i see no problem. If we never did anything I see no problem.
I do see a problem if the elected member CHOSE to always vote in the negative no matter what. now this isnt an action of the council, this is a reflection of the elected member. In essense the member is the problem, not the council.
what i see you saying is that no problem exists, until a member creates the problem and thus it is demonstrated. I fail to see how this is defensable. You have a new car, your friend says something is wrong with it (first and foremost its brand new nothing is wrong with it), you ask "what is wrong with it its brand new", your friend then walks over and bashes the windshield and says "The problem is that your windshield is broken". Do you feel like he was attempting to help you fix the problem with your new car?
SR
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
SR_ said:peanut man, the grown ups are talking, dont you have a poker thread to start or something?
SR
All my secrets are already on your site. Anyhow, I was simply pointing out that your insinuation that Damocles has been dishonest was in and of itself dishonest. Your retort is a typical SR style non-sequitur. Another for of dishonesty. And shouldn't it be "peanut boy" if I'm not yet a grown up?