Common sense, or a rule?

[jimnyc]

Should we extend the rules when issues come up, or keep them short and rely on common sense to dictate? But then without something being "written" into the rules, can we fairly discipline someone who violates what the community considers common sense not to do?

The latest being making fun of others spouses. We've always tried to keep this off limits and have even disciplined based on this. But there is no clear rule, we kind of did this based on common sense, that we don't pick on people that aren't here to defend themselves. Now, I can add this to the rules, but what happens the next time something happens that is obviously out of bounds, but not written in the rules? Do we again update the rules? Do we want a laundry list of rules covering every issue that arises?

This is NOT a discussion of prior events or specifics. This is solely to gauge how the community feels about more rules or whether or not things like this "go without saying".

[jimnyc]

Btw - I'm likely to add this to the rules, as we ALL know it's best to avoid talking smack about family members. But I want the community involved nonetheless.

[fj1200]

Common sense would be don't bring up your wife and don't complain if you do. Or you could just shut a thread down sooner than later.

[jimnyc]

Common sense would be don't bring up your wife and don't complain if you do. Or you could just shut a thread down sooner than later.

A lot of us discuss our families from time to time, and a lot of us post pictures. Do we open them up for smack talk if we do?

[CSM]

A lot of us discuss our families from time to time, and a lot of us post pictures. Do we open them up for smack talk if we do?

I dunno; one would like to think that those who post here would have some modicum of decorum. Attacking some posters family (especially when it is clear that such an attack is nothing more than an attempt to foment anger/resentment/etc) is truly immature and beyond the bounds (IMO). Shouold it be written into the rules? I guess if it isn't there is always at least one who will go down that path simply because it ISN'T in the rules.

[krisy]

I don't think there are many here that would make fun of someones family members. Maybe just ask people to refrain from that and if they are that immature that they feel the need to play 2nd grade,then they can suffer whatever you feel necessary. Maybe a ban for a day or a week.

[Missileman]

Should we extend the rules when issues come up, or keep them short and rely on common sense to dictate? But then without something being "written" into the rules, can we fairly discipline someone who violates what the community considers common sense not to do?

The latest being making fun of others spouses. We've always tried to keep this off limits and have even disciplined based on this. But there is no clear rule, we kind of did this based on common sense, that we don't pick on people that aren't here to defend themselves. Now, I can add this to the rules, but what happens the next time something happens that is obviously out of bounds, but not written in the rules? Do we again update the rules? Do we want a laundry list of rules covering every issue that arises?

This is NOT a discussion of prior events or specifics. This is solely to gauge how the community feels about more rules or whether or not things like this "go without saying".

Unfortunately, common sense isn't as common as its name suggests.

[CSM]

Unfortunately, common sense isn't as common as its name suggests.


True dat.

[ConHog]

I say new rule, because common sense simply isn't applicable here. I guess you could say common sense would dictate not to flame, but who among us doesn't do that at least to varying degrees? So it happens, the board should acknowledge that happens and set boundaries. IF those boundaries don't exist, and aren't in writing then questions will always be asked when someone IS dinged.

It's like the dress code thread where I was telling Gunny that at our particular school we have set rules, so that a student and or parent knows exactly at what point the rules have been violated, we don't just arbitrarily say "no that dress is too short", for example.

The only REAL question is where should the law be drawn. Like Jim said, many of talk about our family from time to time and certainly that shouldn't open them up to flaming. BUT allow me to use my own wife as an example here.

Suppose FJ (again just an example) and I are discussing something in the legal forum, and I post that my wife the lawyer says the law says such and such. Now does that leave my wife open for flaming about her legal abilities? I certainly think it does. After all, I brought her legal skills into the thread did I not? I probably shouldn't have done so, if I didn't want someone flaming her just as they would with me about a legal opinion. On the other hand, that does NOT in my opinion open the way for anyone to flame her based on looks, nationality, sexuality, or anything else except for the specific area that I brought up.


That's my opinion anyway.

[logroller]

Is there not another rule which you could apply more broadly, accomplishing the same end, without implementing such a hard line. Certainly you wouldn't want to limit one's ability to speak of their family at all, but if one uses their family to support their position, then certainly one should be able to rebut their argument. As Noir would say its 'fair play'.

Clearly there are rules which may, from time to time, go un-enforced. This discretion, which you, Jim, are entirely within your rights to exercise; takes into consideration the unique circumstances of the situation. I assume at least one thing you're talking about are those jabs at CH's wife's latino descent; which certainly runs afoul of the proposed rule. However, multiple times to my knowledge CH has mentioned his wife's latino descent in a way which I thought bolstered his position-- certainly this is not as casual as posting a vacation pic and requires a standard of discretion which could, in all likelihood, be thwarted by the protectionist rule you propose-- begging the phrase, could the cure being worse than the ailment?

Whether or not to write the rule is up to you Jim, (its good to be the king!) as is how it would be written and enforced; but if I were in the position to rule I would ask myself, would the situations which have arisen could/should/would have been better dealt with had I a written rule at my disposal?

-

[ConHog]

Is there not another rule which you could apply more broadly, accomplishing the same end, without implementing such a hard line. Certainly you wouldn't want to limit one's ability to speak of their family at all, but if one uses their family to support their position, then certainly one should be able to rebut their argument. As Noir would say its 'fair play'.

Clearly there are rules which may, from time to time, go un-enforced. This discretion, which you, Jim, are entirely within your rights to exercise; takes into consideration the unique circumstances of the situation. I assume at least one thing you're talking about are those jabs at CH's wife's latino descent; which certainly runs afoul of the proposed rule. However, multiple times to my knowledge CH has mentioned his wife's latino descent in a way which I thought bolstered his position-- certainly this is not as casual as posting a vacation pic and requires a standard of discretion which could, in all likelihood, be thwarted by the protectionist rule you propose-- begging the phrase, could the cure being worse than the ailment?

Whether or not to write the rule is up to you Jim, (its good to be the king!) as is how it would be written and enforced; but if I were in the position to rule I would ask myself, would the situations which have arisen could/should/would have been better dealt with had I a written rule at my disposal?

-

I don't mind being used as an example, nor my wife. So taking your points.

I acknowledge that I have used my wife's heritage as well as her profession to bolster certain of my arguments, and you are absolutely right, you SHOULD be able to argue or even flame in my opinion based on what I myself have brought into a thread.

For instance, on another board once I was called a racist, I laughed and said I married a Latina, that's nor very racist of me, someone posted back that my wife wasn't a Hispanic, she was an American . Of course she's an American, but she's a Latina as well, well the thread turned into a flame war over the difference. Now mind you, that board DOES have a rule, no flaming family members unless the person themselves brings them into the conversation and then only on whatever it is THEY brought into the discussion.

So on that board, if I bring up my Latina wife as being of Mexican heritage, THAT becomes fair game, but if I simply posted a picture of the two of us, then flaming her heritage is NOT fair game.

[krisy]

I would say if conhog brings his wife's legal arguments into something(example) then her arguments are open to crticism.That's it. As adults,I would think everyone can determine what is over the lin.If children in grade school can,then I think every adult on this board can. If someone calls her a name,or brings her race into it,their done.

[logroller]

I don't mind being used as an example, nor my wife. So taking your points.

I acknowledge that I have used my wife's heritage as well as her profession to bolster certain of my arguments, and you are absolutely right, you SHOULD be able to argue or even flame in my opinion based on what I myself have brought into a thread.


Argue and debate, YES; but no flaming is a rule here CH, against any member, so naturally it would apply to one's family as well; I would think that rule could be applied to quell most, if not all of the issues this new rule is meant to prevent. Its not a common sense rule currently in effect IMO, its the discretion of the board to enforce the rules we already have. But I'm a fan of the Ninth Circuit Court, so of course I'm for more broad interpretations of existing rules.:laugh:

[chloe]

I don't think anyone should make fun of anyones family.

I guess defining flaming a family, if someone makes a statement about there looks and families looks as the hottest around and posts pictures, common sense says they are sharing something and appreciate feedback.

It's probably better not to say anything if you got nothing nice to say but if all you say is you don't find that type attractive or something along those lines I don't see it as flaming.

[jimnyc]

I don't think anyone should make fun of anyones family.

I guess defining flaming a family, if someone makes a statement about there looks and families looks as the hottest around and posts pictures, common sense says they are sharing something and appreciate feedback.

It's probably better not to say anything if you got nothing nice to say but if all you say is you don't find that type attractive or something along those lines I don't see it as flaming.

But what if a member posts a picture, and someone says MORE than just that they aren't attractive, but starts to become derogatory with terms towards the people in the picture? Is that flaming, or allowed since the member posted the picture him or herself?

[PostmodernProphet]

I say shoot both the bastards and pitch the bodies in the nearest ditch......the sooner you do it, the sooner we can forget they were ever here.......this isn't a problem of not having a rule, it's a problem of two posters who intend to take everything to new heights to annoy the other.....

[logroller]

I don't think anyone should make fun of anyones family.

I guess defining flaming a family, if someone makes a statement about there looks and families looks as the hottest around and posts pictures, common sense says they are sharing something and appreciate feedback.

It's probably better not to say anything if you got nothing nice to say but if all you say is you don't find that type attractive or something along those lines I don't see it as flaming.

Again, this is common sense, but would be a bad rule. If the world was filled only with people like you Chloe, we wouldn't need rules at all.

[ConHog]

But what if a member posts a picture, and someone says MORE than just that they aren't attractive, but starts to become derogatory with terms towards the people in the picture? Is that flaming, or allowed since the member posted the picture him or herself?

Of course it's flaming, that isn't the question. The question is is it acceptable since the person brought their own family member's looks up?

Of course as Log pointed out earlier, you DO actually have a rule on the books now that certainly could be enforced to the max, NO FLAMING period. I guess that's one option.

[ConHog]

Again, this is common sense, but would be a bad rule. If the world was filled only with people like you Chloe, we wouldn't need rules at all.

Isn't that the truth............

[ConHog]

I say shoot both the bastards and pitch the bodies in the nearest ditch......the sooner you do it, the sooner we can forget they were ever here.......this isn't a problem of not having a rule, it's a problem of two posters who intend to take everything to new heights to annoy the other.....

I believe the case was made that this thread wasn't meant to discuss past events, but just the general need or not of a rule.

However calling someone a bastard is also flaming, which goes back to my original point, we all flame to some degree.

[jimnyc]

Of course it's flaming, that isn't the question. The question is is it acceptable since the person brought their own family member's looks up?

Of course as Log pointed out earlier, you DO actually have a rule on the books now that certainly could be enforced to the max, NO FLAMING period. I guess that's one option.

Personally, if a member is kind enough to share a family photo with us, and no matter how much bragging they may do, I think it's flaming and unacceptable. It's also a sure way to prevent anyone else from posting pictures, knowing that it then allows other members to say inappropriate things about them. It's not always about whether or not it's a rule, whether its flaming or not - but rather that its just the wrong thing to do. If not everyone agrees with that, then it's time to make a rule "forcing" everyone to agree.

[logroller]

I say shoot both the bastards and pitch the bodies in the nearest ditch......the sooner you do it, the sooner we can forget they were ever here.......this isn't a problem of not having a rule, it's a problem of two posters who intend to take everything to new heights to annoy the other.....


Indeed, its flaming which is the issue, along with attacking another poster and derailing the thread-- both are rules. In the hypothetical above, are murder in the first degree and improper disposal of a body not sufficient to bring justice? We needn't make a new rule which says killing somebody AND improper disposal is wrong. Similarly, flaming/ using a personal vendetta to derail would suffice. NO NEW RULE.

[OCA]

If a poster puts up a pic of his wife or kids etc. etc. etc., it doesn't matter what comment the poster says about his OWN family members you just don't say anything derogatory, thats it, nothing less, nothing more.

Of course we have some immature individuals or individual here who has to have everything spelled out for him/her, has to have everything in writing, and then when they do it and get the same back in return they cry.


Its the same common sense rules as there are in real life, you don't run your mouth about others family members just like you don't hit on your best buddies divorced wife. Some things are just known.

[hjmick]

How hard could it possibly be? If they're not a member of the board they are unable to defend themselves, they are therefore off limits. It's always been that way, even the most simple minded should know this. That's the unwritten rule.

[OCA]

Personally, if a member is kind enough to share a family photo with us, and no matter how much bragging they may do, I think it's flaming and unacceptable. It's also a sure way to prevent anyone else from posting pictures, knowing that it then allows other members to say inappropriate things about them. It's not always about whether or not it's a rule, whether its flaming or not - but rather that its just the wrong thing to do. If not everyone agrees with that, then it's time to make a rule "forcing" everyone to agree.

I want to change my vote back to "make the rule", we have a few here who simply do not get the unwritten rules of manhood.

[OCA]

How hard could it possibly be? If they're not a member of the board they are unable to defend themselves, they are therefore off limits. It's always been that way, even the most simple minded should know this. That's the unwritten rule.

From one of the "old school members" at that.

The new breed simply do not understand.

[chloe]

I want to change my vote back to "make the rule", we have a few here who simply do not get the unwritten rules of manhood.

I was complimentary to you both.

But I do have a question was that picture really you and your wife?

[ConHog]

Personally, if a member is kind enough to share a family photo with us, and no matter how much bragging they may do, I think it's flaming and unacceptable. It's also a sure way to prevent anyone else from posting pictures, knowing that it then allows other members to say inappropriate things about them. It's not always about whether or not it's a rule, whether its flaming or not - but rather that its just the wrong thing to do. If not everyone agrees with that, then it's time to make a rule "forcing" everyone to agree.

Seems you've already decided and hence no reason to debate it even. And of course it's your board and therefor you're "right" to do. No debate about that.

But, by the same token, we all can acknowledge that if you were in a bar and busted out a pic of your wife and said "look how fucking hot she is" some joker would disagree just to be disagreeing. Is that flaming of the same degree as calling someone's wife a racial slur, or calling her a whore or similar? Of course it is not.

Which is exactly why I voted that yes, you should have a rule that states EXPLICITLY what is and what is NOT allowed. Simply saying hey be mature enough to do what's right is asking for trouble.

[ConHog]

While we're discussing this. Could we also discuss a similar question.

IF you feel a member broke a rule, written or unwritten, is the appropriate response to go nuclear and "give them back" 10X what you feel they did? Does their initial flaming warrant your own behavior? Can you then hide behind "hey I think it's wrong to do what I did, but s/he started it?"

And yes, I've been guilty of that one myself.

[jimnyc]

I was complimentary to you both.

But I do have a question was that picture really you and your wife?

Not sure where that matters.

[jimnyc]

Seems you've already decided and hence no reason to debate it even. And of course it's your board and therefor you're "right" to do. No debate about that.

But, by the same token, we all can acknowledge that if you were in a bar and busted out a pic of your wife and said "look how fucking hot she is" some joker would disagree just to be disagreeing. Is that flaming of the same degree as calling someone's wife a racial slur, or calling her a whore or similar? Of course it is not.

Which is exactly why I voted that yes, you should have a rule that states EXPLICITLY what is and what is NOT allowed. Simply saying hey be mature enough to do what's right is asking for trouble.

I never once said this was a debate. I'm simply looking for feedback.

[OCA]

I was complimentary to you both.

But I do have a question was that picture really you and your wife?

Will the spreader of the rumour please stand up!
:laugh2:
Gotcha, knew you would reveal yourself sooner or later.

[ConHog]

I never once said this was a debate. I'm simply looking for feedback.

My bad, I meant to say discuss. Of course this isn't a debate. THis is dictatorship, and you're the head Dick. :laugh2::laugh2:

Just teasing , don't ban me bro!

[logroller]

Personally, if a member is kind enough to share a family photo with us, and no matter how much bragging they may do, I think it's flaming and unacceptable. It's also a sure way to prevent anyone else from posting pictures, knowing that it then allows other members to say inappropriate things about them. It's not always about whether or not it's a rule, whether its flaming or not - but rather that its just the wrong thing to do. If not everyone agrees with that, then it's time to make a rule "forcing" everyone to agree.

Is this really a problem Jim, has someone used information gathered from a picture thread and used it in a derogatory fashion? or is this a hypothetical? Because if this really happened, you have the power as board owner to apply whatever corrective measures without any rule change IMO. If they don't like it, or understand why that's unacceptable without some written standard or rule, then they best move on elsewhere and good riddance!

[ConHog]

Will the spreader of the rumour please stand up!
:laugh2:
Gotcha, knew you would reveal yourself sooner or later.

Irrelevant to THIS thread, but Chloe doesn't spread rumors PERIOD.

[OCA]

Is this really a problem Jim, has someone used information gathered from a picture thread and used it in a derogatory fashion? or is this a hypothetical? Because if this really happened, you have the power as board owner to apply whatever corrective measures without any rule change IMO. If they don't like it, or understand why that's unacceptable without some written standard or rule, then they best move on elsewhere and good riddance!

Log..................it is not a hypothetical........nuff said.

[OCA]

Irrelevant to THIS thread, but Chloe doesn't spread rumors PERIOD.

Ohhhhh man would I love to go somewhere with this but i'm not going to!

[ConHog]

Is this really a problem Jim, has someone used information gathered from a picture thread and used it in a derogatory fashion? or is this a hypothetical? Because if this really happened, you have the power as board owner to apply whatever corrective measures without any rule change IMO. If they don't like it, or understand why that's unacceptable without some written standard or rule, then they best move on elsewhere and good riddance!

That is of course true, Jim could ban someone for any or no reason, it's his board, that just stands to reason. But , and I may be wrong here, I think we all know that just running around kicking people off your board at any excuse is not a good way to maintain membership. And I think we all can say that Jim is more than fair in handling out bans, at least from what I have seen.

[logroller]

My bad, I meant to say discuss. Of course this isn't a debate. THis is dictatorship, and you're the head Dick. :laugh2::laugh2:

Just teasing , don't ban me bro!


Not a debate, more of an amicus curiae

[jimnyc]

Is this really a problem Jim, has someone used information gathered from a picture thread and used it in a derogatory fashion? or is this a hypothetical? Because if this really happened, you have the power as board owner to apply whatever corrective measures without any rule change IMO. If they don't like it, or understand why that's unacceptable without some written standard or rule, then they best move on elsewhere and good riddance!

Unfortunately, it's happened. And yes, I was told there was no rule covering such an issue. And yes, others have done worse. All the things I have seen that lead to this were equally wrong, but I thought it went without saying, and without a rule, that it was "wrong" and should be off limits. Some look at the rules as guidelines, others look at it as whatever is NOT there is fair game. But I'd rather not have a rules page turn into a rules thread where I have to dictate and micro-manage every last detail. I thought some things were "common sense".

[chloe]

Not sure where that matters.


Is it wrong to ask the question?

[OCA]

Is it wrong to ask the question?

Chloe honey, its better that you not throw rocks when you live in a glass house.

Capece?

[chloe]

Ohhhhh man would I love to go somewhere with this but i'm not going to!


It doesn't matter to me either way OCA, I thought your wife was very very pretty I said so repeatedly in that thread and I also said you were handsome and look really good for your age.

I use pretty women avatars all the time and people have asked me at this board if its me and I always have said its not because Im a fat slob and dont like myself and prefer pretty women avatars.

:laugh2:

[chloe]

Chloe honey, its better that you not throw rocks when you live in a glass house.

Capece?

How is asking you if that picture is really you and your wife throwing rocks?

[logroller]

Seems you've already decided and hence no reason to debate it even. And of course it's your board and therefor you're "right" to do. No debate about that.

But, by the same token, we all can acknowledge that if you were in a bar and busted out a pic of your wife and said "look how fucking hot she is" some joker would disagree just to be disagreeing. Is that flaming of the same degree as calling someone's wife a racial slur, or calling her a whore or similar? Of course it is not.

Which is exactly why I voted that yes, you should have a rule that states EXPLICITLY what is and what is NOT allowed. Simply saying hey be mature enough to do what's right is asking for trouble.

Does that bar owner need a rule posted that specifically states, no calling people's wife/GF a whore or racial slur? You could attempt to reason with them, if they fail to understand-- kick em out.

How bout this rule JIM; I reserve the right to refuse membership for any reason....to quote OCA, 'nuff said'.

[jimnyc]

Is it wrong to ask the question?

I didn't want specifics discussed in this thread as I stated. That, and the fact that you are revealing that you are somewhat privy to "rumors".

What matters here is what the COMMUNITY saw. Lets say I post a picture later today of my wife, and none of you have seen her before. Is it cool for one or a few members to talk smack about her? I personally don't think so. And if someone does, the board as a whole saw someone dis my wife. Even if in a scenario where the picture wasn't in fact of my wife, the offending member still talked smack about my wife as far as the board is concerned.

But the fact that you're repeating a rumor, to an extent, makes me wonder how this information gets around. WAY too much crap behind the scenes.

[ConHog]

It doesn't matter to me either way OCA, I thought your wife was very very pretty I said so repeatedly in that thread and I also said you were handsome and look really good for your age.

I use pretty women avatars all the time and people have asked me at this board if its me and I always have said its not because Im a fat slob and dont like myself and prefer pretty women avatars.

:laugh2:

Jim, can you move this post somewhere so we can slap Chloe around until she stops calling herself fat/ugly/slob etc etc?

[OCA]

How is asking you if that picture is really you and your wife throwing rocks?

Chloe seriously, i'm chomping at the bit.........don't make me have to cut off my hands.

[chloe]

Chloe seriously, i'm chomping at the bit.........don't make me have to cut off my hands.

Your chomping at the bit to attack me for asking the question?

Why?

I thought you liked me and I honestly don't understand why you or Jim is mad I asked about it.

I have always used fake pics as my avatars and never said they were me.

I asked to put it to rest because other people have implied it wasnt you and your wife and I believed you.

I complimented you both because I think it is you and your pretty wife.

I don't know why everyone is mad about me asking why can't we just clear it up.

[ConHog]

Does that bar owner need a rule posted that specifically states, no calling people's wife/GF a whore or racial slur? You could attempt to reason with them, if they fail to understand-- kick em out.

How bout this rule JIM; I reserve the right to refuse membership for any reason....to quote OCA, 'nuff said'.

Of course, I thought that is what we were discussing. Where is the line? IMO the line is if someone posts a picture in a thread entitled "we are both fucking hot" then the hotness of the person in said picture is open to flaming. Just like if I entitled a thread " My wife is not a wetback" well guess what , someone is PROBABLY going to post oh yes she is or something similar and that is fair game , again IMO.

On the other hand if we're discussing vacations and say Jim posts a pic of his family on vacation then HE didn't bring the level of hotness of his wife into the discussion and so that's off limits. Same as if I don't bring whether my wife is a legal citizen or not into a discussion, flaming that should be off limits.

[OCA]

I didn't want specifics discussed in this thread as I stated. That, and the fact that you are revealing that you are somewhat privy to "rumors".

What matters here is what the COMMUNITY saw. Lets say I post a picture later today of my wife, and none of you have seen her before. Is it cool for one or a few members to talk smack about her? I personally don't think so. And if someone does, the board as a whole saw someone dis my wife. Even if in a scenario where the picture wasn't in fact of my wife, the offending member still talked smack about my wife as far as the board is concerned.

But the fact that you're repeating a rumor, to an extent, makes me wonder how this information gets around. WAY too much crap behind the scenes.

You are 100% correct Jimmy, nothing, I mean nothing gives anybody right to talk smack about family members, personally i'm at fault this week for breaking my own oath on that but the precedent was set.

Sorry, I know you didn't want old stuff brought up but I couldn't make my point otherwise.

[jimnyc]

Of course, I thought that is what we were discussing. Where is the line? IMO the line is if someone posts a picture in a thread entitled "we are both fucking hot" then the hotness of the person in said picture is open to flaming. Just like if I entitled a thread " My wife is not a wetback" well guess what , someone is PROBABLY going to post oh yes she is or something similar and that is fair game , again IMO.

On the other hand if we're discussing vacations and say Jim posts a pic of his family on vacation then HE didn't bring the level of hotness of his wife into the discussion and so that's off limits. Same as if I don't bring whether my wife is a legal citizen or not into a discussion, flaming that should be off limits.

If I post a picture of myself and my wife, and claimed in that thread that we were both "hot" - I sure as fuck hope that doesn't open my wife up to flaming, simply because I think she is hot. And i't one thing to simply state that she isn't hot, but name calling is much worse in addition to that. If you truly think what you wrote is how it should be, then maybe a rule is needed, IMO.

[OCA]

IMO the line is if someone posts a picture in a thread entitled "we are both fucking hot" then the hotness of the person in said picture is open to flaming.

This is why you are held in such contempt here.

[OCA]

If I post a picture of myself and my wife, and claimed in that thread that we were both "hot" - I sure as fuck hope that doesn't open my wife up to flaming, simply because I think she is hot. And i't one thing to simply state that she isn't hot, but name calling is much worse in addition to that. If you truly think what you wrote is how it should be, then maybe a rule is needed, IMO.

If you go to a party and your buddy shows up with a 300lb date and says "man she is hot!", does that mean you then have every right to say "she's a fucking slob", sure, if you want a beatdown.

In reality, no, you keep your mouth shut because to do anything else shows rudeness and reveals what a complete asshole you are.

[chloe]

If you go to a party and your buddy shows up with a 300lb date and says "man she is hot!", does that mean you then have every right to say "she's a fucking slob", sure, if you want a beatdown.

In reality, no, you keep your mouth shut because to do anything else shows rudeness and reveals what a complete asshole you are.


I agreed with everyone about that if you dont have something nice to say then dont say, but your wife is pretty and if peoples jealous because of it then they are spreading rumors that the pic wasnt real.

I believe you and I dont know why you are so mad at me I was trying to clear your name.

[jimnyc]

I agreed with everyone about that if you dont have something nice to say then dont say, but your wife is pretty and if peoples jealous because of it then they are spreading rumors that the pic wasnt real.

I believe you and I dont know why you are so mad at me I was trying to clear your name.

WHO is spreading this rumor and how did you hear of it?

[OCA]

I agreed with everyone about that if you dont have something nice to say then dont say, but your wife is pretty and if peoples jealous because of it then they are spreading rumors that the pic wasnt real.

I believe you and I dont know why you are so mad at me I was trying to clear your name.

Because Chloe, mentioning it furthers the rumour, we all know who started the rumour but lets just let it be, ok?

[chloe]

WHO is spreading this rumor and how did you hear of it?

Well someone on your staff is

[jimnyc]

Well someone on your staff is

Forward the PM that one of them sent you and I'll handle it...

[ConHog]

If you go to a party and your buddy shows up with a 300lb date and says "man she is hot!", does that mean you then have every right to say "she's a fucking slob", sure, if you want a beatdown.

In reality, no, you keep your mouth shut because to do anything else shows rudeness and reveals what a complete asshole you are.

Of course not. The difference here is if you and Jim showed up at a party with identical twins each weighing 300 lbs and I was there, I would congratulate Jim on scoring and ridicule you.

Same thing goes here, rarely does one "flame" their buddies online or in real life. Rib ? Yes. Flame? No.

[chloe]

Because Chloe, mentioning it furthers the rumour, we all know who started the rumour but lets just let it be, ok?


Ok then I am sorry I just thought you wouldnt mind because you both are good looking I didnt think it was a big deal.

Plus I am sick of everyone saying this n that theres a lot of fighting over it and I feels bad about it.

[OCA]

Well someone on your staff is

UHHHHH OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!:shitfan:

[chloe]

UHHHHH OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!:shitfan:

Are you my friend or not?

[OCA]

Of course not. The difference here is if you and Jim showed up at a party with identical twins each weighing 300 lbs and I was there, I would congratulate Jim on scoring and ridicule you.

Same thing goes here, rarely does one "flame" their buddies online or in real life. Rib ? Yes. Flame? No.

You are the cancer here.

[OCA]

Are you my friend or not?

Chloe, its a message board, why do you care so much about who are friends and who isn't?

[ConHog]

You are the cancer here.


That is your OPINION and completely irrelevant to this thread.

Oh and I see Jim has in fact enacted an actual no family rule. So that's the rule..........

[Noir]

Common sense should prevail, but this is the internet, write a rule methinks >,>

Though i doubt it'll much matter, if someones being derogatory towards peoples family etc then they're just gonna whine about any punishments be there a written rule or not.

[OCA]

That is your OPINION and completely irrelevant to this thread.

Oh and I see Jim has in fact enacted an actual no family rule. So that's the rule..........

Not just mine..................Nancy.

[ConHog]

Not just mine..................Nancy.

so , let me get this straight. You just harrrassed Chloe about a rumor, but now you yourself want to spread rumors about what others think of me? LOL

Poor OCA

[jimnyc]

That is your OPINION and completely irrelevant to this thread.

Oh and I see Jim has in fact enacted an actual no family rule. So that's the rule..........

If we all have separate views, so quickly, in such a short thread - then it makes sense to me for the board to have a rule settling it. I hate adding rules, and anyone that knows me from over the years also know that I allow them to be broken at times, and do what we can to maximize what everyone can say here. But I don't think adding it will change much. It's something that is extremely rare and overwhelmingly frowned upon. But now its covered for the rare cases.

[chloe]

Chloe, its a message board, why do you care so much about who are friends and who isn't?

I don't have any friends and the messageboards it my only social life I feel bad when people are mean to me.

I try to be nice to most peiople.

But I think I will just leave here since everytime I post my opinion everyone is only mad now.

[ConHog]

If we all have separate views, so quickly, in such a short thread - then it makes sense to me for the board to have a rule settling it. I hate adding rules, and anyone that knows me from over the years also know that I allow them to be broken at times, and do what we can to maximize what everyone can say here. But I don't think adding it will change much. It's something that is extremely rare and overwhelmingly frowned upon. But now its covered for the rare cases.

Makes sense to me.

[OCA]

so , let me get this straight. You just harrrassed Chloe about a rumor, but now you yourself want to spread rumors about what others think of me? LOL

Poor OCA

OMG..............dude do some reading.

[jimnyc]

Well someone on your staff is


Forward the PM that one of them sent you and I'll handle it...

I want to clarify that even this is a rumor and the path leading back to said staff member is 2nd hand knowledge. In other words, what Chloe knows comes from someone other than a staff member.

Regardless though, as a community we should all be able to discuss things like we are doing in this thread. We shouldn't be relying on things that happen behind the scenes. WAY too much gossip and falsehoods going around.

[Shadow]

If I post a picture of myself and my wife, and claimed in that thread that we were both "hot" - I sure as fuck hope that doesn't open my wife up to flaming, simply because I think she is hot. And i't one thing to simply state that she isn't hot, but name calling is much worse in addition to that. If you truly think what you wrote is how it should be, then maybe a rule is needed, IMO.

I totally agree with your comments here. Grown up people should know what boundaries should and should not be crossed when dealing with other people...it's common sense (like you said). There is absolutely nothing wrong with a person having a lot of pride in/love for their spouse and thinking they are a "hottie" even saying or posting so...and it certainly shouldn't open them or their family member up for a heap of nasty comments or further riduclule. I'm not sure why this even has to be explained at all. I mean seriously....but,I guess since people can't be expected to not push the envelope at every turn...then sure...they deserve to be treated like babies and rules should be written up and enforced.

I'm like you...I don't get why this is so hard to understand. But then...attacking someone's wife/husband/kids...isn't something I would do for kicks anyway so...

And...why exactly are people trying so hard to turn this board into a crappy hole that other places are...most of us (well I know I did at least) chose to post here to get away from the immature shit throwing drama...not participate in it.

[Shadow]

Of course not. The difference here is if you and Jim showed up at a party with identical twins each weighing 300 lbs and I was there, I would congratulate Jim on scoring and ridicule you.

Same thing goes here, rarely does one "flame" their buddies online or in real life. Rib ? Yes. Flame? No.

Really? So...in real life you would attack some woman you don't even know with rude comments about her looks..just because you don't like her date?

[ConHog]

I totally agree with your comments here. Grown up people should know what boundaries should and should not be crossed when dealing with other people...it's common sense (like you said). There is absolutely nothing wrong with a person having a lot of pride in/love for their spouse and thinking they are a "hottie" even saying or posting so...and it certainly shouldn't open them or their family member up for a heap of nasty comments or further riduclule. I'm not sure why this even has to be explained at all. I mean seriously....but,I guess since people can't be expected to not push the envelope at every turn...then sure...they deserve to be treated like babies and rules should be written up and enforced.

I'm like you...I don't get why this is so hard to understand. But then...attacking someone's wife/husband/kids...isn't something I would do for kicks anyway so...

And...why exactly are people trying so hard to turn this board into a crappy hole that other places are...most of us (well I know I did at least) chose to post here to get away from the immature shit throwing drama...not participate in it.


Hi Shadow. Long time no talk.

[logroller]

If I post a picture of myself and my wife, and claimed in that thread that we were both "hot" - I sure as fuck hope that doesn't open my wife up to flaming, simply because I think she is hot. And i't one thing to simply state that she isn't hot, but name calling is much worse in addition to that. If you truly think what you wrote is how it should be, then maybe a rule is needed, IMO.
http://dymsum.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/gay-men-kissing.jpg
Let's say I post the above pic of me and my gay husband, and I think he's hottt. Now of course that doesn't mean you need think he's hot, and you could say that, right?
Now would it be appropriate to say, 'what a fag' or 'Who's the pitcher?' 'That's disgusting, you're both going to hell for sinful and despicable acts against nature." I mean, I could certainly take offense to that as overtly personal... Its purely hypothetical BTW, because we can't get married, yet:poke:, but give pause to consider the plausible dilemmas you may find yourself in and determine how this new rule would apply.

I guess what I'm saying is its all a matter of context, intent and variety of other subjective details which aren't addressed by the rule IMO. Hopefully it makes your administration of the site easier and you can spend more time posting, rather than resolving disputes-- I have my doubts, but the site you've built is a good one and I trust you to reason what is best now and in the future.

[jimnyc]

http://dymsum.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/gay-men-kissing.jpg
Let's say I post the above pic of me and my gay husband, and I think he's hottt. Now of course that doesn't mean you need think he's hot, and you could say that, right?
Now would it be appropriate to say, 'what a fag' or 'Who's the pitcher?' 'That's disgusting, you're both going to hell for sinful and despicable acts against nature." I mean, I could certainly take offense to that as overtly personal... Its purely hypothetical BTW, because we can't get married, yet:poke:, but give pause to consider the plausible dilemmas you may find yourself in and determine how this new rule would apply.

I guess what I'm saying is its all a matter of context, intent and variety of other subjective details which aren't addressed by the rule IMO. Hopefully it makes your administration of the site easier and you can spend more time posting, rather than resolving disputes-- I have my doubts, but the site you've built is a good one and I trust you to reason what is best now and in the future.

I'd bite my tongue and avoid replying to a member posting a pic like that. I might have a stance against gays, but I show respect to members who post pictures of their private lives. I might, in other threads, slip every now and again about e members gayness, but I wouldn't user their partner as ammo.

[ConHog]

Really? So...in real life you would attack some woman you don't even know with rude comments about her looks..just because you don't like her date?

Did I say I'd attack a woman? Of course I wouldn't. But if some clown I didn't like was bragging about bangin some ugly chick , I would make fun of it to HIM.

I'm an asshole what can I say.

[jimnyc]

And Log, if that's not one of your actual photos, I'm worried about where you may have went to find it! :poke: :beer:

[ConHog]

http://dymsum.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/gay-men-kissing.jpg
Let's say I post the above pic of me and my gay husband, and I think he's hottt. Now of course that doesn't mean you need think he's hot, and you could say that, right?
Now would it be appropriate to say, 'what a fag' or 'Who's the pitcher?' 'That's disgusting, you're both going to hell for sinful and despicable acts against nature." I mean, I could certainly take offense to that as overtly personal... Its purely hypothetical BTW, because we can't get married, yet:poke:, but give pause to consider the plausible dilemmas you may find yourself in and determine how this new rule would apply.

I guess what I'm saying is its all a matter of context, intent and variety of other subjective details which aren't addressed by the rule IMO. Hopefully it makes your administration of the site easier and you can spend more time posting, rather than resolving disputes-- I have my doubts, but the site you've built is a good one and I trust you to reason what is best now and in the future.

If YOU posted that picture I would say that HE could do better. :dance:

[Abbey Marie]

Seems you've already decided and hence no reason to debate it even. And of course it's your board and therefor you're "right" to do. No debate about that.

But, by the same token, we all can acknowledge that if you were in a bar and busted out a pic of your wife and said "look how fucking hot she is" some joker would disagree just to be disagreeing. Is that flaming of the same degree as calling someone's wife a racial slur, or calling her a whore or similar? Of course it is not.

Which is exactly why I voted that yes, you should have a rule that states EXPLICITLY what is and what is NOT allowed. Simply saying hey be mature enough to do what's right is asking for trouble.

I must hang around better people, then, as I don't know anyone who talks about their wife like a car or a show-dog, complete with curse words. And I certainly don't know anyone who would make such a crass comment about a picture of another guy's wife.

Btw, wouldn't this just provoke a brawl?

[ConHog]

I must hang around better people, then, as I don't know anyone who talks about their wife like a car or a show-dog, complete with curse words. And I certainly don't know anyone who would make such a crass comment about a picture of another guy's wife.

Btw, wouldn't this just provoke a brawl?

Guys are different than girls Abbey. And in MOST cases if the girl truly is hideous no one is going to insult her to the guy (that will come later when he's not around.) It's only the women who really aren't bad looking that guys will say something about. Which is EXACTLY what I said in that thread last year. Right in the thread I wrote that his "wife" wasn't really bad looking and I was just busting balls a little. Same thing happens in real life.

[OCA]

(that will come later when he's not around.)

Thats why you are a bitch and a pussy.

[ConHog]

Thats why you are a bitch and a pussy.

if you actually had any friends you would know that friends do shit like that.

[OCA]

if you actually had any friends you would know that friends do shit like that.

You talk behind your friends' backs? You really are a douche.

[ConHog]

You talk behind your friends' backs? You really are a douche.

and you're an idiot. There isn't a group of guys in the world who doesn't judge one of them when that one isn't around and you fucking know it.

[Abbey Marie]

http://dymsum.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/gay-men-kissing.jpg
Let's say I post the above pic of me and my gay husband, and I think he's hottt. Now of course that doesn't mean you need think he's hot, and you could say that, right?


If you posted this and said he was your gay husband, I would quietly feel sorry for you.
If you kept posting these, I would put you on ignore.

[Abbey Marie]

Guys are different than girls Abbey. And in MOST cases if the girl truly is hideous no one is going to insult her to the guy (that will come later when he's not around.) It's only the women who really aren't bad looking that guys will say something about. Which is EXACTLY what I said in that thread last year. Right in the thread I wrote that his "wife" wasn't really bad looking and I was just busting balls a little. Same thing happens in real life.

Oh, your post sounded like this was said to the guy's face. I have no doubt that immature guys talk all sorts of garbage when they are alone. I have always made it a rule to not be the "only girl" IRL with a bunch of guys for this very reason.

I still think the comment by the theoretical husband is icky, lol.

[Dilloduck]

"icky" is pretty offensive. Can I get a ruling on it's use, please ? :poke:

[ConHog]

Oh, your post sounded like this was said to the guy's face. I have no doubt that immature guys talk all sorts of garbage when they are alone. I have always made it a rule in life to not be the "only girl" IRL with a bunch of guys for this very reason.

I still think the comment by the theoretical husband is icky, lol.

Depends on the friend, and the situation. I have one friend who teased me relentlessly about marrying the "beaner" . He was aghast when I first told him about her 7 years ago, then it was serious ribbing. He just couldn't understand it, 7 years later he still calls her "beaner" but now he's making fun of her for picking me.

So some friends you can say that shit to, some you can't. And EVERYONE is judgmental and verbalizes that on occasion. Anyone who says different is lying.

As for the gay thing. Honest question Abbey, do you KNOW any gays? My children's Godfather is gay, but I don't think of him as gay if that makes sense. He likes football, he drinks beer, he plays golf with us, he will admire a set of boobs with us. He just brings along another guy who does the same. Not all gays are the kind who you just think "icky" the entire time they are around. They don't hide the fact that they are a couple, but they don't announce it either. If that makes sense.

[OCA]

and you're an idiot. There isn't a group of guys in the world who doesn't judge one of them when that one isn't around and you fucking know it.

I guess you hang out with a bunch of wiggers, what can I say?

[ConHog]

"icky" is pretty offensive. Can I get a ruling on it's use, please ? :poke:

I think it's okay if you don't recognize the marriage as being valid?


Judges?

[ConHog]

I guess you hang out with a bunch of wiggers, what can I say?

My friends are not on this board to defend themselves, please stop flaming them.


:coffee:

[Jess]

http://dymsum.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/gay-men-kissing.jpg
Let's say I post the above pic of me and my gay husband, and I think he's hottt. Now of course that doesn't mean you need think he's hot, and you could say that, right?
Now would it be appropriate to say, 'what a fag' or 'Who's the pitcher?' 'That's disgusting, you're both going to hell for sinful and despicable acts against nature." I mean, I could certainly take offense to that as overtly personal... Its purely hypothetical BTW, because we can't get married, yet:poke:, but give pause to consider the plausible dilemmas you may find yourself in and determine how this new rule would apply.

I guess what I'm saying is its all a matter of context, intent and variety of other subjective details which aren't addressed by the rule IMO. Hopefully it makes your administration of the site easier and you can spend more time posting, rather than resolving disputes-- I have my doubts, but the site you've built is a good one and I trust you to reason what is best now and in the future.

If you posted this, saying it was you and your partner, I would ask which one was you and probably make some smart-ass comment about the loss for womankind either way. LOL!

Weren't we all taught some semblance of decency and manners? If someone posts a pic, unless you know them IRL, you're taking their word for it. If they lie about it, that's on them. It is not our job to ferret out the truth on the internet. Lord knows that's an impossible task at best.

Leave families alone, address the topic more than the poster and be basically decent to each other. That's my stance.

[ConHog]

If you posted this, saying it was you and your partner, I would ask which one was you and probably make some smart-ass comment about the loss for womankind either way. LOL!

Weren't we all taught some semblance of decency and manners? If someone posts a pic, unless you know them IRL, you're taking their word for it. If they lure about it, that's on them. It is not our job to ferret out the truth on the internet. Lord knows that's an impossible task at best.

Leave families alone, address the topic more than the poster and be basically decent to each other. That's my stance.

My biggest question is why is that one dude french kissing that other dude's ear?

[Dilloduck]

If you posted this, saying it was you and your partner, I would ask which one was you and probably make some smart-ass comment about the loss for womankind either way. LOL!

Weren't we all taught some semblance of decency and manners? If someone posts a pic, unless you know them IRL, you're taking their word for it. If they lure about it, that's on them. It is not our job to ferret out the truth on the internet. Lord knows that's an impossible task at best.

Leave families alone, address the topic more than the poster and be basically decent to each other. That's my stance.

Everything on th internet isn't true ?:wtf:

[Missileman]

Everything on th internet isn't true ?:wtf:

Yeah...you aren't really Dilloduck. :laugh:

[Jess]

Everything on th internet isn't true ?:wtf:

Not since you quit monitoring my reality ...

[Jess]

My biggest question is why is th:poke:at one dude french kissing that other dude's ear?
It's just a smooch on the cheek, perv.

Doesn't everybody like a smooch on the cheek?
:poke:

[Dilloduck]

Not since you quit monitoring my reality ...


you have a monitor of your very own now. :laugh2:

[Jess]

Yeah...you aren't really Dilloduck. :laugh: Actually, Ducky is real. I have the pictures to prove it.

No, ducky,

I won't show em THOSE pics. ;)

[logroller]

And Log, if that's not one of your actual photos, I'm worried about where you may have went to find it! :poke: :beer:

Google "hot gay boyfriend". And for the record, when they say moderate safe search is "(recommended)", take heed.

[Jess]

you have a monitor of your very own now. :laugh2:

Lol! Sometimes. :)

[Dilloduck]

Actually, Ducky is real. I have the pictures to prove it.

No, ducky,

I won't show em THOSE pics. ;)

I consider those pics part of the family so you would be in big trouble.

[Jess]

I consider those pics part of the family so you would be in big trouble.

You know what a rabid rule-breaker and limit-pusher I am ...

[ConHog]

It's just a smooch on the cheek, perv.

Doesn't everybody like a smooch on the cheek?
:poke:

I am a perv, but that dude is tonguing that other dude's ear.

[Abbey Marie]

Depends on the friend, and the situation. I have one friend who teased me relentlessly about marrying the "beaner" . He was aghast when I first told him about her 7 years ago, then it was serious ribbing. He just couldn't understand it, 7 years later he still calls her "beaner" but now he's making fun of her for picking me.

So some friends you can say that shit to, some you can't. And EVERYONE is judgmental and verbalizes that on occasion. Anyone who says different is lying.

As for the gay thing. Honest question Abbey, do you KNOW any gays? My children's Godfather is gay, but I don't think of him as gay if that makes sense. He likes football, he drinks beer, he plays golf with us, he will admire a set of boobs with us. He just brings along another guy who does the same. Not all gays are the kind who you just think "icky" the entire time they are around. They don't hide the fact that they are a couple, but they don't announce it either. If that makes sense.

The "icky" comment was about the guy talking garbage about the other guy's wife.

Do you really think that to not like gay marriage you have to not know anyone gay? How odd.
Anyway, I had a friend who was gay and I didn't know until he revealed it to me at lunch one day, a very much "out" lesbian roommate in college, and my fave cousin (who came out, left his wife and small kids, moved to SF, and died of AIDS a few years later) was gay. Do I now qualify to have an opinion?

[Dilloduck]

Well rules say a lot about the ruler and common sense says a lot about the censor so take your pick.

( can you tell I just made that up?) :coffee:

[Jess]

I am a perv, but that dude is tonguing that other dude's ear.

Nope. Dude with baby Gunny arms has his mouth closed, not open. Smooch, not tongue.

And you can't make me see it different. *sticks tongue out at CH*

[Abbey Marie]

Well rules say a lot about the ruler and common sense says a lot about the censor so take your pick.

( can you tell I just made that up?) :coffee:

Deep thoughts. :laugh2: How have you been, Dillo?

[ConHog]

The "icky" comment was about the guy talking garbage about the other guy's wife.

Do you really think that to not like gay marriage you have to not know anyone gay? How odd.
Anyway, I had a friend who was gay and I didn't know until he revealed it to me at lunch one day, a very much "out" lesbian roommate in college, and my fave cousin (who came out, left his wife and small kids, moved to SF, and died of AIDS a few years later) was gay. Do I now qualify to have an opinion?

LOL I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't have an opinion Abbey. I was just honestly wondering if you knew any gays.

I'm the last person who would ever tell someone they can't have an opinion, I'm the most factual (some would say opinionated) person I know.

[Dilloduck]

Deep thoughts. :laugh2: How have you been, Dillo?

Hanging in there----keeping an eye on Mom up here in Colorado. Winter sucks.

[Abbey Marie]

Hanging in there----keeping an eye on Mom up here in Colorado. Winter sucks.

Nice son!

Here in little ol' Delaware, we are having the wimpiest winter I can remember ever having. Almost no snow, and it's not even cold most days.

(I'm not bragging, I'm complaining! :cool:)

[Dilloduck]

Nice son!

Here in little ol' Delaware, we are having the wimpiest winter I can remember ever having. Almost no snow, and it's not even cold most days.

(I'm not bragging, I'm complaining! :cool:)

Pretty wimpy here too but anything below 50 degrees sucks to me.:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Google "hot gay boyfriend". And for the record, when they say moderate safe search is "(recommended)", take heed.

An answer of Google would have sufficed. But no, you had to add more, and pique my curiosity as to why you would mention the safe search. So I do the search and didn't see awful stuff. Then I noticed by default my settings were set to "moderate". I then set the safe search settings to "off", and before I could blink my eye, it updated the pictures page.

Now I hate you.

[Jess]

An answer of Google would have sufficed. But no, you had to add more, and pique my curiosity as to why you would mention the safe search. So I do the search and didn't see awful stuff. Then I noticed by default my settings were set to "moderate". I then set the safe search settings to "off", and before I could blink my eye, it updated the pictures page.

Now I hate you.

Quick! Go search for bewbies! That will clear out google and your brain.

[jimnyc]

Quick! Go search for bewbies! That will clear out google and your brain.

You don't know my brain, it doesn't slow down, ever. Once I see something it cannot be undone, and I can't stop myself from allowing me to haunt myself. It's a vicious cycle.

[Jess]

You don't know my brain, it doesn't slow down, ever. Once I see something it cannot be undone, and I can't stop myself from allowing me to haunt myself. It's a vicious cycle.

BrainBleach. It's the only way. :thumb:

Incidently,Gunny frequently says my brain doesn't ever shut down. You sure we ain't kin?

[ConHog]

You don't know my brain, it doesn't slow down, ever. Once I see something it cannot be undone, and I can't stop myself from allowing me to haunt myself. It's a vicious cycle.


3271




You're welcome

[logroller]

An answer of Google would have sufficed. But no, you had to add more, and pique my curiosity as to why you would mention the safe search. So I do the search and didn't see awful stuff. Then I noticed by default my settings were set to "moderate". I then set the safe search settings to "off", and before I could blink my eye, it updated the pictures page.

Now I hate you.

OK so I'm drinking wine with the wife, she likes the dry whites, I'm pretty much a glutton for any open bottle-- anyway, long story short, dry wine makes me salivate more-- reading this, I just had a total spit take. So don't think you grievance went un-addressed. :cheerss:

[Shadow]

Did I say I'd attack a woman? Of course I wouldn't. But if some clown I didn't like was bragging about bangin some ugly chick , I would make fun of it to HIM.

I'm an asshole what can I say.

So...do you think it would hurt the woman's feelings at all that you were bagging on her "looks" in front of her date?

Does this mean you just ignore her presence even though you are in ear shot of her?


Personally... the way you stated that whole comment was offensive IMO. So...apparently you would also rib a "pal" infront of his date, if you felt his date didn't measure up in the looks department...only in a nicer way than example #1...or what exactly? How is being disrespectful of your friends or their gf's not being just rude and immature (or not going to hurt the womans feelings at all)? Expecially when you refer to her as an "it".

And none of my friends act this way either...male or female BTW.

[Shadow]

http://dymsum.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/gay-men-kissing.jpg
Let's say I post the above pic of me and my gay husband, and I think he's hottt. Now of course that doesn't mean you need think he's hot, and you could say that, right?
Now would it be appropriate to say, 'what a fag' or 'Who's the pitcher?' 'That's disgusting, you're both going to hell for sinful and despicable acts against nature." I mean, I could certainly take offense to that as overtly personal... Its purely hypothetical BTW, because we can't get married, yet:poke:, but give pause to consider the plausible dilemmas you may find yourself in and determine how this new rule would apply.

I guess what I'm saying is its all a matter of context, intent and variety of other subjective details which aren't addressed by the rule IMO. Hopefully it makes your administration of the site easier and you can spend more time posting, rather than resolving disputes-- I have my doubts, but the site you've built is a good one and I trust you to reason what is best now and in the future.

I would say I agree...he's a hottie. :thumb:

And if someone made rude comments about your partner...I would say the same thing. It's wrong.

[ConHog]

So...do you think it would hurt the woman's feelings at all that you were bagging on her "looks" in front of her date?

Does this mean you just ignore her presence even though you are in ear shot of her?


Personally... the way you stated that whole comment was offensive IMO. So...apparently you would also rib a "pal" infront of his date, if you felt his date didn't measure up in the looks department...only in a nicer way than example #1...or what exactly? How is being disrespectful of your friends or their gf's not being just rude and immature (or not going to hurt the womans feelings at all)? Expecially when you refer to her as an "it".

And none of my friends act this way either...male or female BTW.

Of course I wouldn't rib him in front of her. Sheesh. No different than if he came out of the bathroom with toilet paper on his shoe, I wouldn't say anything in front of his date, but he'd hear about it when it was just the guys.

Get 2 or more guys together and they are going to act immature at times, Sorry that's the way it is.

Who did I refer to as an it though?

Sorry to tell you, but they probably do.

[Shadow]

I guess you hang out with a bunch of wiggers, what can I say?

I am going to agree with you. I have only known one immature creep who used to act this way...and would actually "moo" at women as they walked by. I didn't know a single guy who approved of this...thought it was funny,cute... or even liked this complete a-hole (unless they lied right to my face when they said they didn't). :rolleyes:

[PostmodernProphet]

I believe the case was made that this thread wasn't meant to discuss past events, but just the general need or not of a rule.

However calling someone a bastard is also flaming, which goes back to my original point, we all flame to some degree.

we don't need a rule....we need you to stop acting like an ass.....and don't worry, I'm not choosing OCA over you, he's an even bigger ass....

[OCA]

So...do you think it would hurt the woman's feelings at all that you were bagging on her "looks" in front of her date?

Does this mean you just ignore her presence even though you are in ear shot of her?


Personally... the way you stated that whole comment was offensive IMO. So...apparently you would also rib a "pal" infront of his date, if you felt his date didn't measure up in the looks department...only in a nicer way than example #1...or what exactly? How is being disrespectful of your friends or their gf's not being just rude and immature (or not going to hurt the womans feelings at all)? Expecially when you refer to her as an "it".

And none of my friends act this way either...male or female BTW.

Some people just never get it Shadow. If Connie did that too me he'd be chewing on his own molars and wondering why a picture frame was hanging around his neck.

[ConHog]

I am going to agree with you. I have only known one immature creep who used to act this way...and would actually "moo" at women as they walked by. I didn't know a single guy who approved of this...thought it was funny,cute... or even liked this complete a-hole (unless they lied right to my face when they said they didn't). :rolleyes:

Ok, let's get some things straight.

I would NEVER EVER EVER moo at a woman or make fun of a woman to her face. That is an ENTIRELY different prospect than ribbing your friend about his choice. If Jim showed up with Jessica Simpson (yeah right) I'd rib him about her rock hard boobs.

[ConHog]

we don't need a rule....we need you to stop acting like an ass.....and don't worry, I'm not choosing OCA over you, he's an even bigger ass....

No offense , but prior to this thread I didn't even know you existed so not sure where the judgement comes from. Oh, and "choose" OCA if you'd like , it's not as if it's a life altering choice for anyone.

[ConHog]

Some people just never get it Shadow. If Connie did that too me he'd be chewing on his own molars and wondering why a picture frame was hanging around his neck.

More psuedo threats from the guy running around saying others need to grow up?

[PostmodernProphet]

No offense , but prior to this thread I didn't even know you existed

that isn't MY problem.....as far as "judgment" is concerned, I don't see any threads around trying to debate whether MY conduct should be the incentive for new rules.....

I think this thread has shown that making a rule would be a waste of time, if people want to be assholes they will find new and innovative ways to be assholes......why follow them around making new rules in the aftermath of their destruction.......shucks it would be like writing new Congressional ethics guidelines........

[Shadow]

Ok, let's get some things straight.

I would NEVER EVER EVER moo at a woman or make fun of a woman to her face. That is an ENTIRELY different prospect than ribbing your friend about his choice. If Jim showed up with Jessica Simpson (yeah right) I'd rib him about her rock hard boobs.

I wasn't refering to you at all when I made that comment. I was just using this particular "creep" as an example....one that my male friends also found offensive...because he was a rude asshole.

[OCA]

No offense , but prior to this thread I didn't even know you existed so not sure where the judgement comes from. Oh, and "choose" OCA if you'd like , it's not as if it's a life altering choice for anyone.\

LMFAO! What a dumbass! He said he's not choosing OCA and you still pop off..............lol.

[ConHog]

that isn't MY problem.....

I think this thread has shown that making a rule would be a waste of time, if people want to be assholes they will find new and innovative ways to be assholes......why follow them around making new rules in the aftermath of their destruction.......shucks it would be like writing new Congressional ethics guidelines........


Sure that is true, but setting a complete ban on flaming family members certainly takes care of any wiggle room there.

[OCA]

More psuedo threats from the guy running around saying others need to grow up?

lol @ pseudo

[ConHog]

I wasn't refering to you at all when I made that comment. I was just using this particular "creep" as an example....one that my male friends also found offensive...because he was a rude asshole.


I knew what you meant Shadow, I was just clarifying that I'm not THAT big an asshole LOL

[ConHog]

lol @ pseudo

So are you arguing that it was an ACTUAL threat?

[Shadow]

that isn't MY problem.....as far as "judgment" is concerned, I don't see any threads around trying to debate whether MY conduct should be the incentive for new rules.....

I think this thread has shown that making a rule would be a waste of time, if people want to be assholes they will find new and innovative ways to be assholes......why follow them around making new rules in the aftermath of their destruction.......shucks it would be like writing new Congressional ethics guidelines........

You bring up a good point. It has been my experience that the assholes on message boards who want to troll posters and stir up shit know exactly what the rules are (and constantly bring them up and remind everyone else what they are too).

They will usually do everything they are allowed to do...and stretch the rules right to the very limit.

[OCA]

So are you arguing that it was an ACTUAL threat?

I don't know, take it however you want.:coffee:

[ConHog]

You bring up a good point. It has been my experience that the assholes on message boards who want to troll posters and stir up shit know exactly what the rules are (and constantly bring them up and remind everyone else what they are too).

They will usually do everything they are allowed to do...and stretch the rules right to the very limit.

So you're suggesting that mini modding and trolling go hand in hand? :laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

You bring up a good point. It has been my experience that the assholes on message boards who want to troll posters and stir up shit know exactly what the rules are (and constantly bring them up and remind everyone else what they are too).

They will usually do everything they are allowed to do...and stretch the rules right to the very limit.

I think we need only one rule......"if you annoy the guy with the ban gun, you may end up banned".......

[ConHog]

I don't know, take it however you want.:coffee:

I did and you laughed as if that isn't how you meant it at all.

I take it back, it wasn't a psuedo threat, because someone would actually have to feel some fear to feel threatened by you, and pity =/= fear.

[logroller]

I would say I agree...he's a hottie. :thumb:

And if someone made rude comments about your partner...I would say the same thing. It's wrong.
hands off bitch--that's my man!:laugh2:

[OCA]

I did and you laughed as if that isn't how you meant it at all.

I take it back, it wasn't a psuedo threat, because someone would actually have to feel some fear to feel threatened by you, and pity =/= fear.

Yawn

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[ConHog]

I think we need only one rule......"if you annoy the guy with the ban gun, you may end up banned".......


THAT would be a TERRIBLE rule, that is how USMB was ran for awhile and it sucked. One thing I'd say EVERYONE agrees on here is that Jim is pretty damned even about not just tossing someone off his board just because they annoy him. *

* See OCA's continued activity on the board as proof.

[ConHog]

hands off bitch--that's my man!:laugh2:

Catfight............. Someone better call Jim back in here, if one of you loses a shirt and he doesn't see it, we may all get banned.:laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

THAT would be a TERRIBLE rule

only if your goal is to annoy the guy with the ban gun.....

[Shadow]

So you're suggesting that mini modding and trolling go hand in hand? :laugh2:

Pretty much... yep. Probably why these personalities are invited to the boards in the first place actually. Apparently the childish shit flinging is good for traffic?? I don't know....I ain't up on the latest message board etiquette and all that.:thumb:

[PostmodernProphet]

One thing I'd say EVERYONE agrees on here is that Jim is pretty damned even about not just tossing someone off his board just because they annoy him. *


obviously, or you and OCA's annoying games would have resulted in something more than a discussion of whether it's fair to get rid of you if it isn't written in a rule.......personally, I don't see where either of you are worth the debate.....

[Shadow]

hands off bitch--that's my man!:laugh2:

Okay...which one are we talking about again?? Maybe the hottie was you. :laugh2:

[ConHog]

only if your goal is to annoy the guy with the ban gun.....

Completely untrue. The man with the ban gun can dish it out pretty good on occasion so if he just simply banned people who fought back, that would suck. And yes that is EXACTLY how that piece of shit USMB was being ran. Certain mods and their little friends would do whatever they felt like , and if you didn't bow down to them they would fuck with you until they got bored then boom gone. It happened all the time.

THANK GOD Jim doesn't run his board that way.

[ConHog]

obviously, or you and OCA's annoying games would have resulted in something more than a discussion of whether it's fair to get rid of you if it isn't written in a rule.......personally, I don't see where either of you are worth the debate.....


I would argue that I DO get involved with a lot of the flaming, but I also get involved with a lot of the serious threads as well, and that my input on those threads is welcomed enough to more than balance out the flaming . I could be wrong. You're welcome to start a poll to find out .

[PostmodernProphet]

I would argue that I DO get involved with a lot of the flaming, but I also get involved with a lot of the serious threads as well, and that my input on those threads is welcomed enough to more than balance out the flaming . I could be wrong. You're welcome to start a poll to find out .

so basically, you figure you have a right to act like an ass because you didn't use to be an ass?.......OCA has no excuse, he's always been an ass and he prides himself in that fact......

and before you ask, yes.....I am old enough to beat both of you with the "act like a grownup" stick.......

[ConHog]

so basically, you figure you have a right to act like an ass because you didn't use to be an ass?.......OCA has no excuse, he's always been an ass and he prides himself in that fact......


No, actually I figure NONE of us has any rights re this board except for Jim. That not only includes me not having a right to be the occasional asshole on the board, but it also includes YOU not having the right to expect there to be no assholes on the board.

I try to keep my flaming in the flame zone . It doesn't always happen , but I try. You are free to completely ignore those threads and in fact the rule is actually that the flame zone isn't supposed to be discussed outside of the flame zone so you could post here and be blissfully unaware of me and OCA going at it down there if you so wished.

I will try harder to make sure my own flames stay in the appropriate forum when I flame though.

[OCA]

obviously, or you and OCA's annoying games would have resulted in something more than a discussion of whether it's fair to get rid of you if it isn't written in a rule.......personally, I don't see where either of you are worth the debate.....

And yet here you are, debating him.

8 yr veteran, i've paid my dues.

[PostmodernProphet]

You are free to completely ignore those threads

I do ignore those threads.....unfortunately that means I don't read half the threads on the board.......but this is a thread about what we should do about it.....and I intend to voice my opinion......and if you don't like it YOU can ignore something for a change.......

I suggest a rule......if Jim tells you to put OCA on ignore and you make the mistake of replying to something OCA says, you get a 24 hour vacation......same for OCA......if it happens twice, you get a week vacation......

[PostmodernProphet]

And yet here you are, debating him.

8 yr veteran, i've paid my dues.

and you've been an asshole the entire time.....well, not quite the entire time....I've been here about five and I'm pretty sure you've been banned at least half of that......don't pretend you didn't come back for the sole purpose of annoying your old friends.....

[ConHog]

And yet here you are, debating him.

8 yr veteran, i've paid my dues.


Paid your dues? Is there some board rule that says after a certain amount of years posting you're allowed to be a total asshole with no repercussions?

Actually, I KNOW that's what you think because you've posted it several times since I've been a member here.

[OCA]

THAT would be a TERRIBLE rule, that is how USMB was ran for awhile and it sucked. One thing I'd say EVERYONE agrees on here is that Jim is pretty damned even about not just tossing someone off his board just because they annoy him. *

* See OCA's continued activity on the board as proof.

Man you are so far off on your radar of who is liked and who is not its laughable.:laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

lol, you guys can't even stop in the middle of getting your asses chewed for doing it......

[OCA]

so basically, you figure you have a right to act like an ass because you didn't use to be an ass?.......OCA has no excuse, he's always been an ass and he prides himself in that fact......

and before you ask, yes.....I am old enough to beat both of you with the "act like a grownup" stick.......

Yes Pmp, I really don't care, i'm an ass, i've learned to live with it, i've developed coping mechanisms.

Most of all it makes me happy.

[ConHog]

I do ignore those threads.....unfortunately that means I don't read half the threads on the board.......but this is a thread about what we should do about it.....and I intend to voice my opinion......and if you don't like it YOU can ignore something for a change.......

I suggest a rule......if Jim tells you to put OCA on ignore and you make the mistake of replying to something OCA says, you get a 24 hour vacation......same for OCA......if it happens twice, you get a week vacation......

I've already indicated in this thread that I would NEVER tell another person they couldn't post their opinion. so please don't act as if I have done so towards you.

As for your rule. Truth is, I don't believe Jim would ever ORDER someone to put another poster on ignore. He just doesn't seem the nazi type. Oh that also smacks of the other board, where I was in fact told to just ignore someone who was continuously spreading rumors, flaming me. My response then is the same as it would be if Jim ordered me to ignore someone. My ignoring a person doesn't mean the flames, rumors, attacks, etc etc have stopped. It merely means I no longer see them. And the rules don't say anything about not seeing flames, they say not to flame to begin with.

So that's a non starter.

Besides, when the right person is being defended very few if any have a problem with OCA being attacked.

[OCA]

and you've been an asshole the entire time.....well, not quite the entire time....I've been here about five and I'm pretty sure you've been banned at least half of that......don't pretend you didn't come back for the sole purpose of annoying your old friends.....

No, i've been banned for about total time of a year mainly because I won't give in.

First time was because of a douche named Nevadamedic.....the few others I don't know and don't really care.

I'm an ass, I love it.

[ConHog]

lol, you guys can't even stop in the middle of getting your asses chewed for doing it......

I wasn't' aware that this thread was to chew my ass, nor OCA's for that matter. I thought it was merely about flaming family.

[OCA]

I do ignore those threads.....unfortunately that means I don't read half the threads on the board.......but this is a thread about what we should do about it.....and I intend to voice my opinion......and if you don't like it YOU can ignore something for a change.......

I suggest a rule......if Jim tells you to put OCA on ignore and you make the mistake of replying to something OCA says, you get a 24 hour vacation......same for OCA......if it happens twice, you get a week vacation......

Nope, not going to happen. I'm going to get rid of some of the cancers(Connie) that came with Gunny whe he left USMB.................if you only knew the type of shit they've cooked up here behind the scenes.

[OCA]

lol, you guys can't even stop in the middle of getting your asses chewed for doing it......

My ass doesn't even have a bite on it.

[OCA]

I've already indicated in this thread that I would NEVER tell another person they couldn't post their opinion. so please don't act as if I have done so towards you.

As for your rule. Truth is, I don't believe Jim would ever ORDER someone to put another poster on ignore. He just doesn't seem the nazi type. Oh that also smacks of the other board, where I was in fact told to just ignore someone who was continuously spreading rumors, flaming me. My response then is the same as it would be if Jim ordered me to ignore someone. My ignoring a person doesn't mean the flames, rumors, attacks, etc etc have stopped. It merely means I no longer see them. And the rules don't say anything about not seeing flames, they say not to flame to begin with.

So that's a non starter.

Besides, when the right person is being defended very few if any have a problem with OCA being attacked.

OMG......dude, you are a joke.

[PostmodernProphet]

So that's a non starter.


why, just because you don't like it?......the fact you're stupid enough to equate it with being a Nazi doesn't mean the rest of us are that stupid.......you would be free to debate any issue you wanted so long as the two of you were unable to see what the other was saying....

[Shadow]

I've already indicated in this thread that I would NEVER tell another person they couldn't post their opinion. so please don't act as if I have done so towards you.

As for your rule. Truth is, I don't believe Jim would ever ORDER someone to put another poster on ignore. He just doesn't seem the nazi type. Oh that also smacks of the other board, where I was in fact told to just ignore someone who was continuously spreading rumors, flaming me. My response then is the same as it would be if Jim ordered me to ignore someone. My ignoring a person doesn't mean the flames, rumors, attacks, etc etc have stopped. It merely means I no longer see them. And the rules don't say anything about not seeing flames, they say not to flame to begin with.

So that's a non starter.

Besides, when the right person is being defended very few if any have a problem with OCA being attacked.

What the heck does the bolded comment mean? That smacks of the "other" board to me. I didn't like it when the little board hacks over there all ganged up on other posters...the ones they all agreed upon that it was "okay" to attack. That shit is BS...no matter who is doing it. Stifling others free speech.

The idea behind the self moderation by "group think" only leads to a pack mentality IMO. I like to hear what everyone has to say...and feel that they should be allowed to say it...even if I don't like them.

[PostmodernProphet]

My ass doesn't even have a bite on it.

you're only unaware of it because you lack sensitivity.....

[OCA]

Paid your dues? Is there some board rule that says after a certain amount of years posting you're allowed to be a total asshole with no repercussions?

Actually, I KNOW that's what you think because you've posted it several times since I've been a member here.

Nope, you just get spanked by me constantly so you scream "asshole" at the top of your lungs loud enough hoping it will drown out the fact that you can't debate shit and are a hypocrite.

The truth hurts but there it is.

[ConHog]

why, just because you don't like it?......the fact you're stupid enough to equate it with being a Nazi doesn't mean the rest of us are that stupid.......


Now hold up, here you are lecturing ME about flaming and saying Jim should get rid of me, and I haven't flamed you the ENTIRE thread, not even once and you just out and out call me stupid?

That negates everything you've said in this thread prior.

[ConHog]

Nope, you just get spanked by me constantly so you scream "asshole" at the top of your lungs loud enough hoping it will drown out the fact that you can't debate shit and are a hypocrite.

The truth hurts but there it is.

I have ONE word for you .

SCOREBOARD

[OCA]

What the heck does the bolded comment mean? That smacks of the "other" board to me. I didn't like it when the little board hacks over there all ganged up on other posters...the ones they all agreed upon that it was "okay" to attack. That shit is BS...no matter who is doing it. Stifling others free speech.

The idea behind the self moderation by "group think" only leads to a pack mentality IMO. I like to hear what everyone has to say...and feel that they should be allowed to say it...even if I don't like them.

Its ok Shadow, I pride myself and not being liked by the majority, I wear it like a badge of honour. If it gets too back slappy here I get bored and lose interest for long periods of time.

[PostmodernProphet]

Now hold up, here you are lecturing ME about flaming

good, it's finally sinking it.......


and you just out and out call me stupid?

without even a moment's hesitation.....



That negates everything you've said in this thread prior.

let's be honest.....the way you've been acting lately negates everything you've ever posted on this board.....

[OCA]

I have ONE word for you .

SCOREBOARD

I've got a phrase for you.....I know who voted for whom and it went along party lines so to speak........what a fucking tool, I swear to God! Unbelievable.

[ConHog]

What the heck does the bolded comment mean? That smacks of the "other" board to me. I didn't like it when the little board hacks over there all ganged up on other posters...the ones they all agreed upon that it was "okay" to attack. That shit is BS...no matter who is doing it. Stifling others free speech.

The idea behind the self moderation by "group think" only leads to a pack mentality IMO. I like to hear what everyone has to say...and feel that they should be allowed to say it...even if I don't like them.

I was referring to the fact that the whole beginning of me and OCA is when I first started posting here and he was going after RSR calling him a fat bastard and making fun of his cancer and such. THAT is when I started shoveling it back at him, and oh I was told how funny it was that OCA was getting some of his own back and so forth; but now all of a sudden that isn't being said.

I really didn't mean anything more by it, and in fact I don't EVER want anyone banned or quieted. I even asked Jim to let PB come back but was told hell no. LOL

[ConHog]

good, it's finally sinking it.......



without even a moment's hesitation.....



let's be honest.....the way you've been acting lately negates everything you've ever posted on this board.....

That's fine, but don't expect me to take your sanctimonious claims of " I don't like the flaming" seriously from this point forward.

[PostmodernProphet]

Its ok Shadow, I pride myself and not being liked by the majority, I wear it like a badge of honour. If it gets too back slappy here I get bored and lose interest for long periods of time.

and this, Con, is why you're an idiot for not putting the ass on ignore......

[OCA]

I was referring to the fact that the whole beginning of me and OCA is when I first started posting here and he was going after RSR calling him a fat bastard and making fun of his cancer and such.


Prove that...............I fucking dare ya.

Find the post that I made fun of his cancer, if not shown I will publicly and privately campaign for your permanent ban from this site through all of my 8 yr connections.

Unless of course, you retract that statement first and admit you are just slandering libelously.

[ConHog]

I've got a phrase for you.....I know who voted for whom and it went along party lines so to speak........what a fucking tool, I swear to God! Unbelievable.

party lines? Dude we don't even have 8 liberals on this board LOL. the other day it was "people voted for who they like better"

Just admit the board voted that I made a better argument and move on. It is what it is. Just means you can't claim you kick my ass in every debate.

[OCA]

and this, Con, is why you're an idiot for not putting the ass on ignore......

PMP is it because I admit beforehand what you are going to get from me? I see you do not have me on ignore.

[PostmodernProphet]

That's fine, but don't expect me to take your sanctimonious claims of " I don't like the flaming" seriously from this point forward.

dude, you don't take anything seriously.....I'm not sanctimonious.....I really AM superior to you......you're just too stupid to admit it......

[Shadow]

Its ok Shadow, I pride myself and not being liked by the majority, I wear it like a badge of honour. If it gets too back slappy here I get bored and lose interest for long periods of time.

Yeah...I can relate. If I have to read a million shallow self centered "pick me" "pick me" threads of...who do you like the bestest/who do you rep the mostest...It makes me wanna barf. :puke:


Like I said earlier...there is a reason I post here and not elsewhere.

[ConHog]

Prove that...............I fucking dare ya.

Find the post that I made fun of his cancer, if not shown I will publicly and privately campaign for your permanent ban from this site through all of my 8 yr connections.

Unless of course, you retract that statement first and admit you are just slandering libelously.

campaign away. LOL @ slandering libelously.

[OCA]

party lines? Dude we don't even have 8 liberals on this board LOL. the other day it was "people voted for who they like better"

Just admit the board voted that I made a better argument and move on. It is what it is. Just means you can't claim you kick my ass in every debate.

You are an idiot, it was based upon who is liked personally........................this board is now a bunch of cliques like high school...............didn't used to be that way so we can only blame the new crop.

[ConHog]

dude, you don't take anything seriously.....I'm not sanctimonious.....I really AM superior to you......you're just too stupid to admit it......

LOL and Prophet turns into OCA right before our eyes.

Got news for you pal, aint no one on this board better than anyone else.

[fj1200]

A lot of us discuss our families from time to time, and a lot of us post pictures. Do we open them up for smack talk if we do?

Of course not. I was thinking the context of how you bring them up. If your wife is the expert to which you refer on a particular subject and present the argument, then you've opened her up to criticism of her opinion... as an example.

[ConHog]

You are an idiot, it was based upon who is liked personally........................this board is now a bunch of cliques like high school...............didn't used to be that way so we can only blame the new crop.

If it were based on who was liked, you wouldn't have even garnered 5 votes.

Next............

[PostmodernProphet]

PMP is it because I admit beforehand what you are going to get from me? I see you do not have me on ignore.

I don't need buttons to help me ignore what you say.....I simply don't read the posts you write....I didn't even know you and Con were having an argument till this thread showed up.......I'm just sharing my opinion on how to deal with the problems you create.....personally, I think its a shame you drove Red away, he's a far more valuable poster than you are......but it isn't my problem he couldn't deal with you........

[ConHog]

Of course not. I was thinking the context of how you bring them up. If your wife is the expert to which you refer on a particular subject and present the argument, then you've opened her up to criticism of her opinion... as an example.

Agreed, and how is that any different than if you present her as HOT and someone disagrees.

However it's a moot discussion at this point, because the rule has been posted .

[OCA]

campaign away. LOL @ slandering libelously.

Go find the cancer and fat bastard post, times a ticking.

Oh man....this is gonna be great!:banned:

[PostmodernProphet]

LOL and Prophet turns into OCA right before our eyes.

Got news for you pal, aint no one on this board better than anyone else.

actually, right now that isn't true.....a couple of you aren't worth shit at the moment.....

[OCA]

LOL and Prophet turns into OCA right before our eyes.

Got news for you pal, aint no one on this board better than anyone else.

Sure there is, we are ALL better than you.

[ConHog]

actually, right now that isn't true.....a couple of you aren't worth shit at the moment.....


Your opinion is noted and filed in the appropriate receptacle.

[OCA]

I don't need buttons to help me ignore what you say.....I simply don't read the posts you write....I didn't even know you and Con were having an argument till this thread showed up.......I'm just sharing my opinion on how to deal with the problems you create.....personally, I think its a shame you drove Red away, he's a far more valuable poster than you are......but it isn't my problem he couldn't deal with you........

Uhhhh, I didn't have a damn thing to do with him going away.

It was Connie.

[Gunny]

What the heck does the bolded comment mean? That smacks of the "other" board to me. I didn't like it when the little board hacks over there all ganged up on other posters...the ones they all agreed upon that it was "okay" to attack. That shit is BS...no matter who is doing it. Stifling others free speech.

The idea behind the self moderation by "group think" only leads to a pack mentality IMO. I like to hear what everyone has to say...and feel that they should be allowed to say it...even if I don't like them.

It ain't going to happen here either. If Jim wants to re-open this thread tomorrow, it's on him. As far as I know, the decision's been made and that's that. In the meantime, Jim started this thread and topic and it's his. If he wants to entertain the "I can't shut my mouth " crowd, fine. I have no desire to.

[OCA]

If it were based on who was liked, you wouldn't have even garnered 5 votes.

Next............

Got that cancer and fat bastard post yet?