The Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Henry Kissinger is quite arguably the best Secretary of State America has ever had, certainly the best during the Cold War. Future Secretaries should try to mimic him.

I don't agree, certainly, but that qualifies as neither absurdity, ignorance, nor bad posting.

Amen.

But, as ZuWo said, that's not the idea of this thread. It's all too common for posts to be quoted here just because they don't adhere to the Democratic forum party line.

I see the new thread is off to a nice start free from debate and arguing...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

traditional marriage.

You see, it's posting stuff like that turns this thread into a pile of steaming crap rampant with political hackery.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

traditional marriage.

You see, it's posting stuff like that turns this thread into a pile of steaming crap rampant with political hackery.

Traditional marriage where the wife is purchased or traditional marriage within one race? The poster never made it clear.

Given the context of the poll the post was discussing, it's pretty clear it was talking about same-sex marriage.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

traditional marriage.

You see, it's posting stuff like that turns this thread into a pile of steaming crap rampant with political hackery.

^^^

Seriously, let's not let this Deluge go off the rails like the last one did.

Yep. I'm with Inks here.

And when he says that about a comment I made concerning the Deluge, you know that's some serious business!

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Welp, I hope you guys had your fun. Certainly at my expense.

I don't know why I hung around here for as long as I did, but I won't be doing it anymore. I'm sick of being treated like I'm not worth anything. You people try to pass yourselves off as adults, well you're not. You're all children. So have fun beating down every child that wants to feel like they have a say in the world. Because you've now succeeded at least once.

1. I hope you stay.  I'd encourage you to ignore stupid threads like these.
2. This is the very reason I locked the first thread - it does nothing but lead to hackishness and harm hte community harmony.  Clearly I was overruled in my "Will of Dave" interpretation, but I think many agree with my principle in locking it - the thread sucks and doesn't serve a meaningful net-beneficial purpose.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I find the thought of teenaged or young adult women who, because of a mistake or an episode of poor judgment, are forced to cut short their dreams and goals to raise a child that will always be on at least some level unwanted much more upsetting than the thought of my parents hypothetically aborting me.

As a person who was likely an accident, I can say that it sucks.  Particularly when it's two random people who hate eachother who are forced by their silly morals to stay with eachother.

I see fewer unwanted kids as a good thing.  But even then we'll have the problem of insanely idiotic 14 year old girls who want to keep their fetus.

this post was just disturbing.

What, because you can't wrap your head around the idea of someone placing more value on a nearly adult human being's potential than a fetus? The 14 year old girls who get pregnant aren't idiots because they decided to abort or not abort; they just tend to be idiots in general.

no the first half was bad enough (like cry for help bad), calling everyone that might be traumatized about terminating something that might call them mom an idiot especially if they're mixed up kids just made it worse.

Oh yeah that was indeed weird.

I'm just saying that based off of my first hand experienced all girls at my school who have gotten pregnant, whether they aborted or didn't abort, have been morons. Either way they weren't going to go anywhere. The ones who decided to keep the kid were evangelical or catholic, the ones who didn't were fairly non-religious. I honestly don't see the contemplation behind both choices being very in-depth or rational tbh.

I think I might be a misanthrope some days.

edit: I'm done, sorry thread creators and mods. Delete my posts if you want.

I have no desire to police this whole thread, and if I did, it'd probably just lead to more death points.

There's really 4 options:
1. Make your own rules and use the honor system to not be a hack / engage in stupid debate in this thread.
2. Make your own rules and have me enforce them but not have rule-breakers punished via points, which gives no incentive for posters to abide by the rules and causes a headache for me.
3. Make your own rules and have me enforce them with points, which will cause outcry from the anti-mod crowd.
4. I lock the thread.

I'm not going to do 4, and I'm not going to do 2.  I really don't want to do 3, but 1 really isn't working.  So, figure this out amongst yourselves for now, and if you want to chagne how this disaster of a thread works, let me know.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

One man's "completely indefensible or undeniably ignorant" is another's obvious common sense.

Generally, no.  If it's not understood and accepted by virtually all rational people, it really isn't common sense.  Common sense is simply the thought processes and judgment that most all members of society have, othe than those who are irrational thinkers or lack basic experience from which to develop those thought processes and judgment.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

How about we call this thread a free speech(troll) zone? Anything goes here except for obviously unacceptable things like gore, porn and other shocking images.

Well that's not what the creator of the thread wanted.  Most pro-Deluge posters don't want it to be a place of hackery and arguing.  And nowhere on this board is going to be a zone where trolling is allowed.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

One man's "completely indefensible or undeniably ignorant" is another's obvious common sense.

What do you think "common" means? And if you're talking about people like Bushie or Teddy, they aren't normal at all.

Well, for example;

Blue Avatar:  "Most people on welfare are life-long moochers who wouldn't take employment even if it were available."

Red Avatar: *posts in this thread*

It might be considered "common sense" on this forum that Blue Avatar's statement is "absurd," but if you did a poll of the American public odds are that you'd find a substantial majority agreeing with Blue Avatar.

You're misunderstanding the meaning of "common" in "common sense".  It's not the common of "Cancer is common among smokers."  It's the common of "The air is a common resource of humanity."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Oh, for Dave's sake.

Don't argue about the thread.  Use the thread or lose the thread.

Do not respond to this post.  If you are tempted to respond to this post, consider hunting down some absurd, ignorant, or bad posts and posting those instead.

Someone's been taking humor tips from Snowstalker, I see...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, it depends on what you mean by evolution exactly.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yeah I get it. Better to not post at all then post what I posted. He did write a book about you though I was so impressed by that.

But then you would've ceased not posting at all.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I normally don't post in here, but this one's such a failure at reading comprehension I can't resist:

Title: McCain: Palin was a better candidate than Romney!

Ouch! With friends like this who needs the Obama campaign.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/07/mccain-i-wasnt-scared-off-by-romney-tax-returns-129201.html

Mitt Romney's tax returns had nothing to do with Sen. John McCain's decision to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008, according to the Arizona Republican, saying he chose the former Alaska governor because she was a "better candidate."

...

"Of course not," McCain told POLITICO when asked if the contents of Romney's tax returns disqualified him from the selection process. "I don’t know what depths these people won’t reach. Obviously, it’s just outrageous. That’s just outrageous. It shows the – it’s so disgraceful for them to allege something that they have absolutely no knowledge of."

Asked why he chose not to go with Romney, McCain said: "Oh come on, because we thought that Sarah Palin was the better candidate. Why did we not take [Tim] Pawlenty, why did we not take any of the other 10 other people. Why didn’t I? Because we had a better candidate, the same way with all the others. ... Come on, why? That’s a stupid question."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Not the original posts, but the edits, obviously.

HP

HP

HP

Someone seems a bit bitter...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

These threads have been closed at least like 16 times.  Why is keeping the current thread open such a big deal?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The only ignorant thing there was in thinking Phil wouldn't overreact, considering his past reactions to forum events...

Reported as a personal attack.

It's truth.  You argued with me that someone had hacked your tinypic link when even the administrators at tinypic told me that what you were describing was impossible.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

1) There is in fact no such tradition. The previous Deluge was locked by the OP, not by a moderator.

2) Thinking that nobody would care about the closing of an Atlas Forum institution is absurd.

There was such a tradition for the Goldmines. This is why they were eventually superceded by the Institute, which is eternal and will never close.

Oh, well apparently I missed that discussion.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

1) There is in fact no such tradition. The previous Deluge was locked by the OP, not by a moderator.

2) Thinking that nobody would care about the closing of an Atlas Forum institution is absurd.

There was such a tradition for the Goldmines. This is why they were eventually superceded by the Institute, which is eternal and will never close.

Oh, well apparently I missed that discussion.

Oh, I don't recall any such discussion either. I am just stating the apparent facts to a n00b who probably can't remember the Goldmines. The Institute has I think (I may be mistaken) been around longer now than any of the Goldmines ever lasted despite the occasional fistfights in its Hallowed Halls.

I don't know if it's been around longer (that was actually one of the things I looked at when I locked it was how long these things normally last), but it had more pages than all of the ones I clicked, so I figured it was fine to start a new one.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

These threads have been closed at least like 16 times.  Why is keeping the current thread open such a big deal?

What, did you forget the reaction the last time you tried to pull this bullinks?

Which was?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If you're referencing locking the Deluge, then read my post in the Goldmine:

I'm doubled over at this idea that Inks was going to bow to the very first hint of public displeasure as if he always does that.

There's no precedent for what I did here.  What I did was not an action out of a Terms of Service moderation, but merely what I understood to be unofficial forum precedent.  Once I would've realized that my understanding of how the goldmine worked wasn't the same as everyone else's, I would've undone what I did, since I wasn't acted under the TOS, but acting under the rules that had previously guided the goldmines.

Whether or not you believe me is irrelevant, because I know I'm right, since you can't know my thought process.

I didn't lock the Institute because I thouht it violated the TOS.  I deleted a page worth of TOS violations and thought that at that point, the thread had run its course and it was time for a new one.

In locking the Deluge, it was my belief at the time that it should be permanently locked.

Why would I think people would flip out over a new comedy goldmine being started?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The hits keep coming. Inks brushed off my suggestion earlier that he just delete the questionable comments in thread (because it would result in a whole page being deleted) instead of locking the thread. Now he's acting like it was part of his plan all along. Brilliant performance.

I love it when a brat gets caught overstepping their bounds and is feverishly back peddling.

No, when you suggested that, I had already deleted the posts...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If you're referencing locking the Deluge, then read my post in the Goldmine:

I'm doubled over at this idea that Inks was going to bow to the very first hint of public displeasure as if he always does that.

There's no precedent for what I did here.  What I did was not an action out of a Terms of Service moderation, but merely what I understood to be unofficial forum precedent.  Once I would've realized that my understanding of how the goldmine worked wasn't the same as everyone else's, I would've undone what I did, since I wasn't acted under the TOS, but acting under the rules that had previously guided the goldmines.

Whether or not you believe me is irrelevant, because I know I'm right, since you can't know my thought process.

I didn't lock the Institute because I thouht it violated the TOS.  I deleted a page worth of TOS violations and thought that at that point, the thread had run its course and it was time for a new one.

In locking the Deluge, it was my belief at the time that it should be permanently locked.

Why would I think people would flip out over a new comedy goldmine being started?

That's entirely beside the point. What matters is that you seem to think that a longstanding forum institution (the Deluge bzw. the Institute) can be locked on no other grounds than "it was getting annoying to moderate." If you think there is too much material to moderate, step down and let someone else be moderator. It's that simple.

I didn't simply close it because it was getting annoying to moderate.  I closed it because it was getting annoying to moderate AND because when fights like these break out in previous Goldmines, that's the point that a new one starts.

Without that second half of the sentence, I wouldn't have locked the thread, and that's what you're not understanding.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Speaking of getting caught, Phil, I'm awaiting your response.  You never have conceded the Tinypic point after what, a year now?

The only ignorant thing there was in thinking Phil wouldn't overreact, considering his past reactions to forum events...

Reported as a personal attack.

It's truth.  You argued with me that someone had hacked your tinypic link when even the administrators at tinypic told me that what you were describing was impossible.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks, you made a statement that you didn't lock the thread because it violated the ToS. Yet you quite clearly told me that you locked it because I was "an ass publicly on the forum and that's a violation of the ToS."

Care to explain why you're lying here?

That was not the PM I sent.  That sentence had nothing to do with the locking of the Goldmine.

For context, I'll post the whole PM:

Inks, get over yourself and get laid.

"I don't take orders from you."

Oh! Very serious moderator man! You are in charge! Yes sir!

You decide to threaten me ("...and your threads might stay open in the future")? Great. You've gotten your war now. I'm staying on this until the thread is unlocked and/or you're removed as a moderator. You seriously need to get a life, dude.

P.S. - Glad you delete other threads when personal attacks are directed my way.  

It's not a threat.  It's a simple principle.  Be an ass publicly on the forum, and that's against the Terms of Service.

I delete threads when personal attacks are directed your way, and I deleted and infracted the post in the thread that you reported.

Dude, it's time to grow up and stop being an Internet drama queen.  Not only is it immature, but you're going to regret it when sh**t like this surfaces when you run for office.  Not everybody is as cordial to your trolling as I am - look at how much attention the liberals on the site paid attention to DWTL's election when he ran.  Do you really want some of the stuff you've said on this forum public?

Come on man - just be civil.

"You've gotten your war now" - that's Jr. High stuff.  Anybody who starts a war in an Internet forum has no place to tell someone to "get a life".

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Phil, you posted my private message out of context without my permission.

I had 2 remedies: A) remove the offending message you posted, which would 1) not clear my name to people who had seen the misleading post, and 2) probably make you complain more that I deleted it.

B) Put the entire conversation in context.  Since you posted my PM, that could be reasonably interpreted to mean you agreed to allow posting of the PMs in question.