sick of the inconsistency

[Fullarton Power]

I didn't actually take notice of who posted the thread, just assumed from the content that it was you

But seriously, do you think you may have a persecution complex?

You really are one sad, sick little puppy.

 

[purplesoul]

All my post about 4 in total got removed from the limricks, people need to just live with it. Fred and co are the boss and if you dont like it start your own forum.

You seem to be a very sensible (and prolific) poster.

 

[purplesoul]

You really are one sad, sick little puppy.

Those type of personal insults are not welcome on BF FP. Please pull your head in.

 

[Fullarton Power]

Those type of personal insults are not welcome on BF FP. Please pull your head in.

I think I've got quite a few in the bank, thanks very much. Time to start repaying some debts.

 

[bogan4life]

You seem to be a very sensible (and prolific) poster.

When you work night shift, and have a computer your post count go up.

If this place had so many problems why does ti have about 10,000 members and why do the people who are unhappy post here?

 

[purplesoul]

I think I've got quite a few in the bank, thanks very much. Time to start repaying some debts.

Well, all I have got to say, is that you have hurt me now. Thank you very much for making me sad.

 

[purplesoul]

When you work night shift, and have a computer your post count go up.

If this place had so many problems why does ti have about 10,000 members and why do the people who are unhappy post here?

Ignore it. A few unhappy souls feel persecuted. The strange thing is they seem to attract a large number of otherwise sensible posters to question their (prevocative?) statements.

The majority occassionaly have posts deleted (and maybe even warnings from mods/admin) and live wth it without complaint.

 

[mantis]

If this place had so many problems why does ti have about 10,000 members and why do the people who are unhappy post here?

Exactly, I get annoyed sometimes, if it got to me too much I would just stop posting, but unfortunately for my many followers that hasn't happened yet. I have taken a few breaks though, some were my decision, others were Adrians.

 

[Impunity!]

Some of you seem very sad indeed. PM me if you want me to come over and give you a hug.

 

[Fullarton Power]

Originally Posted by purplesoul

Ignore it. A few unhappy souls feel persecuted. The strange thing is they seem to attract a large number of otherwise sensible posters to question their (prevocative?) statements.

You have got this completely out of whack. And that is the whole problem.
I'd like to know to whom you are referring when you use the term ' otherwise sensible posters ' . If you include yourself in that bracket, you're completely off the radar. You are a first class knob. And if I am correct in my guess as to who else you are referring to, the same description can be used to label each of them as well.
I suggest you amend the statement ' question their provocative statements ' to read ' nothing better to do with their sad little lives than log on to an internet forum and instigate flame wars ' to better reflect the true sequence of events that happens round here.
If you want proof of this, keep watch and see how many of the same aforementioned knobs post aggressive, abusive responses to this post.
And finally, I suggest you look up the word ' persecution ' . Learn what a word means before you spray it around indiscriminantly.
No one feels persecuted at all. Simply put - from my own angle - I would just like to know how some posters can launch vitriolic attacks on another individual or individuals, using taboo subjects or issues any decent person would not encroach upon, blatantly and repeatedly, and escape any action, whilst gentle, lame comment made in a general context elicits nasty PMs from admin, one in particular.
That is what's called inconsistency, not persecution, and that is what Raskolnikov is talking about.
You really should try to see two sides of the fence one day.

 

[*Danni*]

So in other words FP your beef is with Semiotics, not Semantics?

 

[Fullarton Power]

So in other words FP your beef is with Semiotics, not Semantics?

What on God's Green earth do you mean by that??

 

[*Danni*]

What on God's Green earth do you mean by that??

I mean that you are interpreting 'signs' in the text written by other posters and the behaviour of the moderators in relation to those texts/posts to mean something, but that it is only your interpretation, not actually fact. You are ********ed off about connotative meanings and how they relate to each other in a big picture (posts deleted/posters suspended) instead of across the board content issues.

Or in other words:

You're narky because you see a post deleted, a poster banned, another post stay, and another poster not banned, for something that YOU interpret at as being similar. You then interpret this as favourtism and inconsistancy.

That it's not only the semantics of who and who isn't actually banned, but also the 'message' you are interpreting from those actions and from the content of posts you think are out of line that are left up on the boards.

Is that what you are trying to tell us??

 

[*Danni*]

To ease your frustration on these issues and start to look at it from a different perspective, to learn to see how many different perspectives and interpretations there might be, might I suggest some light reading:

www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem01.html

The world of communication isn't black and white.

 

[Fullarton Power]

I mean that you are interpreting 'signs' in the text written by other posters and the behaviour of the moderators in relation to those texts/posts to mean something, but that it is only your interpretation, not actually fact. You are ********ed off about connotative meanings and how they relate to each other in a big picture (posts deleted/posters suspended) instead of across the board content issues.

Or in other words:

You're narky because you see a post deleted, a poster banned, another post stay, and another poster not banned, for something that YOU interpret at as being similar. You then interpret this as favourtism and inconsistancy.

That it's not only the semantics of who and who isn't actually banned, but also the 'message' you are interpreting from those actions and from the content of posts you think are out of line that are left up on the boards.

Is that what you are trying to tell us??

Why do you have to complicate everything? It's all very simple.
There are a handful of posters whose sole objective is to pyss people off and start flame wars. This they achieve by jabbing below the belt or launching personal attacks which inclde slanderous and grossly offensive material. Why are they not banned when the forum rules state explicitly this behaviour is not welcome? Don't try to tell me you people don't know about it. You know who they are.
Conversely, why do some mods / admin send aggressive and threatening PM's regarding a lame general remark aimed at one demographic, but are happy to join in slagging off of , or allow continual and offensive remarks to be posted against,another demographic,with nauseating regularity, which is a complete and utter contradiction.
One admin person in particular fits this category.
Rather than try to blind me with science, how about addressing the issues?

 

[Former]

You are a first class knob.
...
If you want proof of this, keep watch and see how many of the same aforementioned knobs post aggressive, abusive responses to this post.

Can anyone else spot the anomaly here? Free 12 months BFSC membership for the first, neatest, correct answer.

 

[purplesoul]

Can anyone else spot the anomaly here? Free 12 months BFSC membership for the first, neatest, correct answer.

FP is being persecuted and does not have double standards?

 

[*Danni*]

I'm not complicating anything. You've totally missed my point as shown in the beginning of your post. You say "There are a handful of posters who sole objective is....." etc etc.

When the reality is "In your opinion/interpretation/understanding there are a handful of posters....." etc etc.

It's your interpretation of events. It's your response to your interpretation that is causing you so much angst.

Change your interpretation, get a different response. It's not rocket science. It's not complicated. It's just fact.

You can harp on about 'issues being addressed' when in fact they are YOUR issues. They are formed from YOUR interpretations, your opinions, your responses, your reactions.
Unless you can provide factual elements and supported examples, and do so in a way that is informative to us, then we have no real idea of what you are talking about. Claiming "You know who they are" again is YOUR opinion. You want us to concur with YOUR opinion, you provide the information and we'll then see.

Until then there is an easy solution. If you find this site and it's posters and moderators that abhorrant, don't come here. Make different choices. If you don't like this place, the people and the moderators, yet you still come here, then don't complain about it, just stop coming.

 

[Fullarton Power]

Can anyone else spot the anomaly here? Free 12 months BFSC membership for the first, neatest, correct answer.

There is no anomaly. That remark is very tame in comparison to what usually gets chucked about.
And iyn the context it was used it is a fact. this person is nothing but a disruptive, snide little smartarse.

 

[*Danni*]

There is no anomaly. That remark is very tame in comparison to what usually gets chucked about.
And iyn the context it was used it is a fact. this person is nothing but a disruptive, snide little smartarse.

In your opinion right? Not actually fact. Unless of course you care to provide us with legitmate evidence to support your statement?

 

[Former]

And iyn the context it was used it is a fact.

I don't know a single person who is, in context or in point of fact, "a knob".

 

[Sealen]

I don't know a single person who is, in context or in point of fact, "a knob".

Not even Bentleigh?

 

[purplesoul]

this person is nothing but a disruptive, snide little smartarse.

I resemble that! Please stop the name calling FP.

 

[*Danni*]

I don't know a single person who is, in context or in point of fact, "a knob".

Oh I don't know about that AA - now maybe I read in some journal recently that 'knob' is a newly coined psychological term that currently isn't listed in the DSM-IV ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed).

I'm sure FP could enlighten us on this one being the expert on behavioural 'facts' on bigfooty.

 

[purplesoul]

Free 12 months BFSC membership for the first, neatest, correct answer.

Anyway, where is my prize?