Just Curious....

Post by **_SleepingWillow** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:24 pm

Sono_hito wrote:Southwest came to my party last night. Its a dude FYI.

Hey, you never know. :p

Post by **_gramps** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:34 pm

Nice to have you here. Enjoyed your short but eventful stay on the Mad board.

Post by **_asbestosman** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:38 pm

SleepingWillow wrote:Go ahead, ask them if they capriciously ban people who follow the board guidelines, stay civil and reasonable, but disagree with the party line. I put money down that you won't get anything except denial or a sarcastic form of yes. They're very proud of their "free-idea zone."

The problem is that "reasonable" is a subjective term.

Post by **_SleepingWillow** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:09 pm

asbestosman wrote:The problem is that "reasonable" is a subjective term.

If you want to argue that I was unreasonable, whilst Pahoran (or Hammer/selek/etc.), el Capitino Douchebag de Apologeticos, was reasonable, by all means go ahead.

Post by **_harmony** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:16 pm

SleepingWillow wrote:
asbestosman wrote:The problem is that "reasonable" is a subjective term.
If you want to argue that I was unreasonable, whilst Pahoran (or Hammer/selek/etc.), el Capitino Douchebag de Apologeticos, was reasonable, by all means go ahead.

Apologists are always reasonable. It's the critics who have to await judgment on a case by case basis.

Post by **_Bryan Inks** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:18 pm

harmony wrote:
SleepingWillow wrote:
asbestosman wrote:The problem is that "reasonable" is a subjective term.
If you want to argue that I was unreasonable, whilst Pahoran (or Hammer/selek/etc.), el Capitino Douchebag de Apologeticos, was reasonable, by all means go ahead.

Apologists are always reasonable. It's the critics who have to await judgment on a case by case basis.

AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Harmony, I love that!

Post by **_asbestosman** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:31 pm

SleepingWillow wrote:
asbestosman wrote:The problem is that "reasonable" is a subjective term.
If you want to argue that I was unreasonable, whilst Pahoran (or Hammer/selek/etc.), el Capitino Douchebag de Apologeticos, was reasonable, by all means go ahead.

I wish to argue no such thing. I'm only saying that from the mods' point of view, such may be the case (and you're really not helping your case when you resort to namecalling).