Should we bring back a moderator team?

[ceeboo]

He also wasn't addressing the board about trolling.

Yes, he certainly was addressing the board about trolling.

And in his clear address to the board - he was even generous enough to include Shades' personal feelings about trolling, EA's trolling of him many moons ago, references to the old boards home page, suggestions to everybody to go back and look at their own posting history, asking people to see how often they post substance/drama and he even indicated that trolling is an okay thing to do in the eyes of Shades. (I happen to agree)

For you to suggest that he wasn't addressing the board is silly. And your suggestion that he was specifically addressing one poster, Cultellus, is silly as well. So, you were silly twice in the same post. Well done!

[canpakes]

I will defer to others and to Shades on how Gadianton's prejudices and complicity in homosexual epithets factors into the poll in this thread and the long-term moderation of this forum and its subforums.

No need to defer to others to ‘confirm’ something that exists solely within your imagination.

I believe my points are valid even if they are a minority or sole opinion.

They’d be your sole opinion, as they’re not based on reality.


ETA: Let me quote someone, who’s words accurately sum up your post:

In a nutshell, nothing you have suggested here is supported by the content of Gadianton's post. The exact opposite of what you are claiming is closer to the truth or the actual truth.

But, hey - keep digging that hole. ; )

[canpakes]

He was addressing the board about trolling … At no point did he limit the introspective sample experiment to "Cultellus' body of posts."

In fact, he narrowed it further in his follow up post, 8 pages back, entitled,

“Epistle to Cultellus”

… in which Gad addresses your imagined offenses and offers some perspective on your own behavior.

viewtopic.php?p=39535#p39535

You should probably wait more than 24 hours before trying to gaslight everyone. Most folks in here have pretty well-functioning memories. : D


Here again, your own words apply well to your own words:

“In a nutshell, nothing you have suggested here is supported by the content of Gadianton's post. The exact opposite of what you are claiming is closer to the truth or the actual truth.”

[Lem]

He also wasn't addressing the board about trolling.

Yes, he certainly was addressing the board about trolling.

And in his clear address to the board - he was even generous enough to include Shades' personal feelings about trolling, EA's trolling of him many moons ago, references to the old boards home page, suggestions to everybody to go back and look at their own posting history, asking people to see how often they post substance/drama and he even indicated that trolling is an okay thing to do in the eyes of Shades. (I happen to agree)

You quoted the post to Cultellus, which was an epistle to Cultellus. Now you are referring to other posts, whereas my comment was in response to your comment about this post, from which you specifically picked out a section and specifically defined it as trolling.. A section that did NOT constitute trolling, and in which he was speaking to Cultellus.

For you to suggest that he wasn't addressing the board is silly.

I don't even know what to say to that. When a sentence says someone wasn't doing something, followed by an 'about', the word 'wasn't' specifically refers to the thing in the 'about' clause. Not silly, just grammar.

And your suggestion that he was specifically addressing one poster, Cultellus, is silly as well. So, you were silly twice in the same post. Well done!

sigh. Silly is a descriptive word, isn't it? I might use it differently, though. For example, speaking of your assertion that Gad wasn't speaking to a specific poster:

Epistle to Cultellus:

.....

Anyway, enough dealing with silliness.

[canpakes]

Yes. I do believe in Shades' project more than Gadianton.

Yet, just this morning you wrote:

“The insults, disdain, bigotry and prejudice are so damn thick down there in Paradise that section of this forum/board should be deleted and removed, or fixed…

Choosing to have Gadianton moderate Paradise is the wrong choice. “


You don’t seem to have any respect for Shades’s board with comments about removing sub-forums that you don’t like.

Children do not agitate against bigotry, prejudice and the use of homosexuality as a pejorative.

Neither do you. Using that as an excuse for your behavior i what you’re doing. Otherwise, the Great Awakening site awaits your crusade, if you were ever serious. You’re not.

[ceeboo]

You quoted the post to Cultellus, which was an epistle to Cultellus.

That also is not true (now you're being silly for the third time in less than a minute)

My post had nothing to do with your claim that I pasted a part of a quote from "an epistle to Cultellus." The post I quoted was "Re: Trolling" which isn't even on the same page.

I'm really not interested in continuing to explain things to you that are so crystal clear - so after this one, I am not going to waste any more of my time explaining things to you that are so obvious to anyone who is reading this thread.

Here it is again:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Trolling.

Often, we get a narrow idea in our heads of what an ideological opponent is like and then when we see those positions taken on a forum, by golly it must be for real and now there is license for blasting with both barrels. Okay, I admit, in today's world with capital riots and people dying in hospitals rather than get a vaccine that they wouldn't have questioned prior to 2016, the online caricature might actually be the real deal. But you guys know what I mean.

This was an address to the board about trolling: But as far as I can tell, the only trolling is the actual trolling being done by the author - who is cleverly partaking in the art of trolling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then here is your comment that followed:

He also wasn't addressing the board about trolling.

Again - He was certainly addressing the board about trolling.

[ceeboo]

You quoted the post to Cultellus, which was an epistle to Cultellus.

Don't let facts or the truth slow you down, Lem. Just keep on keeping on. This is insane. You are conflating, ceeboo is not.

No kidding.

Thanks!

[Lem]

Go ahead and explain it to Shades. You should. And you should also know that I respect Shades a ton, and frankly, I believe I respect his project more than you do.

You have been here ~1 month and the vast majority of your posts have been hostile, repetitive, childish finger pointing. You've presented a pseudonym that behaves like the insecure redshirt freshman who tries to stand out by accusing other players of sucking at football.

It is a signal of intentioned disruption or else a delusional overinflated self-image to even consider the notion that you believe in Shades' project more than Gadianton. That is one of the most laughable things ever I've read in Terrestrial.

Back on "ignore" for you.

I am completely in agreement with this. Ceeboo throwing his lot in with this poster is unfortunate, but, to each his own.

[Res Ipsa]

I have to admit that I'm not seeing what some people are seeing. Gadianton made two different posts. One was titled "trolling," and was not directed to specified posters. I don't purport to speak for Gad, but it appeared to me that the "sting" of that post was directed to folks that call for moderation yet appear to thrive on drama. The second was "Epistle to Cultellus," and was clearly directed to Cultellus. As Dean Robbers is perfectly capable of telling us when he is talking to a specific poster, I see no reasonable interpretation of the "trolling" post that has it directed to Cultellus.

That being said, Cultellus is wrong about the Dean. It isn't the first time he has defamed a member here and, given his track record, won't be his last. Moderation will result in his (and everyone else's) personal attacks being confined to Telestial/Prison.

[Lem]

I have to admit that I'm not seeing what some people are seeing. Gadianton made two different posts. One was titled "trolling," and was not directed to specified posters. I don't purport to speak for Gad, but it appeared to me that the "sting" of that post was directed to folks that call for moderation yet appear to thrive on drama. The second was "Epistle to Cultellus," and was clearly directed to Cultellus. As Dean Robbers is perfectly capable of telling us when he is talking to a specific poster, I see no reasonable interpretation of the "trolling" post that has it directed to Cultellus.

That being said, Cultellus is wrong about the Dean.

Absolutely.

It isn't the first time he has defamed a member here and, given his track record, won't be his last. Moderation will result in his (and everyone else's) personal attacks being confined to Telestial/Prison.

That would be great.