--- In [email protected], "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@...> wrote: > > "> 1. LEARN TO FUCKIN' COUNT, like the rest of us. > > > > 2. STOP BEING LED AROUND BY YOUR EGO-DICK. You > > don't "need" to respond to everyone who describes you > > differently than you'd like to be described. To do so > > is a sign of weakness, not strength. Grow the fuck up. > > > > 3. IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, SUCK IT UP WHEN > > THE REST OF US LAUGH AT YOU LIKE THE DORKS > > YOU ARE." > > Like I said, what a charmer.:-)
No kidding. This post is so revealing of what a crummy human being he is. Not to mention how illogical his thinking is. He accuses me of advocating censorship, then proceeds to advocate it himself, as in what you quote above: it's perfectly fine to demonize people, even lie about them, but it's not OK for them to respond. The "free speech zone" Barry waxes so eloquent about when it comes to his right to demonize and lie about the people he doesn't like goes rapidly out the window when it comes to their right to respond. And note that it's censorship, in his mind, to ask folks to delay their impulse to demonize for a week. That impulse must be allowed to be indulged *immediately*; it can't wait until the banned overposter is back. What does that say about the self-control of the demonizers? Is that supposed to be a "sign of strength"? FWIW, I've participated in a number of moderated groups in which no public comment on a moderation was permitted, at the time *or* later. I've never seen *anybody* scream that it was censorship. They'd have been laughed off the forum if they had. The "LEARN TO FUCKIN' COUNT, like the rest of us" command is also pretty funny. "The rest of us" don't typically get so close to 50 posts that they even *need* to count. If they did, most of them would go over occasionally too; nobody's as obsessive as Barry about keeping track. And as I said before, the idea that once in a while accidentally going over by one or two posts somehow destroys what the posting limits were designed to control is simply ludicrous; there's no need to be obsessive about it. If someone is overposting repeatedly and deliberately, that's a different story. But that's obviously not happening. The reason *Barry* is so obsessive about the posting limits, and why he agitated for them in the first place, is that it gives him yet another *excuse* to demonize the folks he doesn't like and lie about them without fear of rebuttal (as he does about Robin below). Yup, he sure is a charmer. > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > What I find even funnier is to hear this cry for censor- > > > ship being called for out of "fairness." > > > > Barry couldn't run his various numbers and prop up his > > self-image if he had to be fair. For him, fairness > > *would* be "censorship." He genuinely can't tell the > > difference. > > > > Again, this post is a superb example of Barry's utter > > unwillingness to be fair, as well as his inability, as > > I said before, to comment honestly and accurately on > > anything that takes place on FFL. > > > > The weirdest part of this is that *he doesn't realize > > how transparent his motivations are* to everybody but > > him. ZERO self-knowledge. > > > > > > > > > The way some people think, being "fair" means watching > > > someone get their buttons pushed by someone else here, > > > lose all sense of self control (and even the ability > > > to count), and get so bent behind the need to attack > > > another poster or defend themselves that they go over > > > the posting limit and get banned for a week. > > > > > > Then, according to the censors, what the rest of us -- > > > who *didn't* do this stuff, and are still well within > > > our limit of posts for the week -- are supposed to do > > > to be "fair" to these idiots is to sit there in silence > > > and not say a word about their childish behavior. It > > > would be "unfair" to do so because they are around to > > > respond or defend themselves. > > > > > > WTF? "Responding and defending themselves" is what got > > > their asses banned for a week in the first place. They > > > couldn't control themselves. I think it's in their > > > *interest* to have people laugh at them and poke a little > > > fun at how easily they get their buttons pushed, because > > > then they might actually learn a little something and be > > > less likely to do it in the future. :-) > > > > > > I'd say this is doubly true if the person who has been > > > consigned to the posted out bench claims to be enlightened. > > > WTF? I mean, you're claiming to be enlightened and you > > > can't even count well enough and be in control of your > > > emotions enough to keep from making more than 50 posts > > > a week? Get real. You DESERVE to have people laugh at > > > you and poke fun at you while you're "away." > > > > > > Bottom line is that there are only a handful of people > > > who have EVER gone over the posting limit since it's been > > > established. Interestingly, most of that handful consists > > > of the group I've been calling Gladys Knight and the Pips, > > > and most of *them* have gone over the limit and gotten > > > banned for a week multiple times. > > > > > > And yet WHO is saying it's "not fair" for the rest of us > > > to be able to comment on posters who get stupid over and > > > over again and go over the limit over and over again? > > > Hmmmmmmmmm. Makes you think that the cry for censorship > > > isn't about being "fair" but a preemptive attempt to get > > > other posters to stop making comments about *them* when > > > *they* go over the posting limit again, doesn't it? > > > > > > I know a simpler, three-step solution: > > > > > > 1. LEARN TO FUCKIN' COUNT, like the rest of us. > > > > > > 2. STOP BEING LED AROUND BY YOUR EGO-DICK. You > > > don't "need" to respond to everyone who describes you > > > differently than you'd like to be described. To do so > > > is a sign of weakness, not strength. Grow the fuck up. > > > > > > 3. IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, SUCK IT UP WHEN > > > THE REST OF US LAUGH AT YOU LIKE THE DORKS > > > YOU ARE. > > >
