That is mighty nice of you Fellowship. If I spent the time in helping out someone and it turned out it was all some big farce, i wouldn't be so quick to forget.
Wow. You guys got so intense over this, that I will say. I expected much more outrage than this regarding my incident re: "death/suicide pictures".
That said, I think the advice I shared with Trumpt is useful, the fact that he *is* married (as far as we can tell and according to him), this was quite nice banter. I don't really feel cheated, because my advice was offered to him and whoever was reading in general.
For me, if I had lost a lot of sleep, was a good friend, had sessions with him at several bars for several nights trying to work this out, gave him some money, then yes, I would be pissed as hell. At worst I wasted like 30 minutes on a forum I don't have much faith in anyways.
In response on credibility etc. brought up in another thread where it was asked for proof and post it in the thread that caused this lack of same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
I also have something to confess and I feel very terrible about this given how much work some of you put into your replies. I feel truly horrible and terrible. I lied.
Feels terrible but then goes on to say,
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
You are absolutely right I never said I what I did was an error in judgement. I don't consider it to be such and wouldn't change what I did.
You two as far as I can see have shared nothing and harbor an awful lot of anger. So clearly this made you discover something about yourself and you don't like what you see. I'm not going to apologize for that or take it back. You can live with it.
Let me call some bullshit on you as well. What "fallout" is there related to this? Someone believed I was troubled for two days on the internet. Did they jump into their car and come help? Did they send me some money? Aside from my mirror which some don't like, what is the fall out?
And maybe do it again.
He did you a favor.
What's the problem? What's the fallout?
From one of the better people on this forum,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship
Your credibility.
I have no more time for this lab rat trick of yours. Cheers
Fellows
If Fellowship can't call it for what it is, who can?
I was irritated with this game as well. Why? First of all my sister is having problems in her marriage and I have been there for her and it takes a toll on me as well being family and all. Some of my neighbors are having money issues and I have tried to encourage them during their hard times (their money problems are due to medical costs). Then to see Nick having "stuff" going on I wanted to extend to him my friendship in time of need also.
For the rug to be jerked out and Nick saying.... I lied to you all
It pissed me off. Being a Christian I forgive Nick right away but my goodness I hope Nick does not do this kind of stuff in the future. It is not cool to jerk around people in some kind of trick.
And Nick don't get on Shawn or any other posters here as if this is about some kind of fault on their behalf. This entire thread is your doing Nick. OWN that and move on.
Fellows
Why you continue to engage him in any sort of conversation is your burden. Ignore him and he'll eventually simply die from the lack of attention.
Well, SOMEBODY wanted to talk about this some more, hence the bump.
I'm thinking someone wanted to continue the annoying tendency of attacking the person instead of the position, so they dredged up some old shit to throw back in his face.
I guess if that's all you got and you're not honest enough to admit it, attacking the poster instead of the post looks attractive.
There was a question of credibility raised and I was invited to respond in the appropriate thread that was referred to in regard to said question and would be dealt with by the poster who's credibility was in question.
How do you gage the credibility of someone?
By looking at past actions is a good place to start, especially in an anonymous internet forum.
If you don't agree or care, that's fine, but there are others that don't like being caught up in a hoax that brought out sincere emotional responses and then being chastised for letting their emotions rule when showing their disgust.
I don't think it's a valid excuse not to address specific positions you don't agree with, though.
Throwing around the word "credibility" doesn't mean a whole lot in a setting such as this, as none of us can truly establish our own credibility without coming out from under our comfortable (and protective) cloaks of anonymity.
I try not to take things too personally on the interwebz and address the issues rather than the people raising them. I will admit I sometimes fail at this, myself.
I agree. I think we should speak about credibility because it has absolutely nothing to do with factual reality.
In reality, something is ether true or it isnt true. The person presenting the information is really nothing more than a vessel for that information. If the vessel is bad, the information is not bad and likewise is the vessel is awesome and great, the information does not become awesome and great.
This was the list of people who engaged in a PM discussion to manipulate the board. I think I see the name of a certain person bumping this thread and several more who have been banned.
Let's take one of the names on that list, a moderator at the time and see how he responded to an legitimate claim of harassment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
I don't give a shit. I quit being a moderator about two months ago.
I don't fucking care. Shove it up your ass and die of cancer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Respect the privacy of fellow forum members. Hopefully this will not be an issue, but do not post personal information or pictures of a member without that member's approval. Disputed information will be deleted.
I don't want to be a "drama queen" but giant is posting my personal information in this post. It contains one of my street addresses.
I would appreciate you deleting it and I personally feel he is attempting to harass and intimidate with it. I can't think of a legitimate reason for him to even accidentally post an address associated with me except to try to show he is acting in a manner comparable to a stalker.
Hmmmmm.... I'm not feeling the love there are you?
How about this guy we call franksargent, let's see what he has to say about how to post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent
Personally, I'm not one for using ignore lists.
In the case of trumptman, it's the silly season, meaning an election cycle, everything he's posted lately has been Obama related and always with a severe negative slant.
If there is something factually incorrect, meaning that there is objective information that refutes his nonsense, it seems to me that this should be used to counter that specific point and deserves to be posted.
I thing the most effective response to our one man Obama wrecking machine is to flood those threads with totally unrelated replies, keep them short, totally irrelevant to the subject de jour, posts totally random images, etceteras.
Trumptman almost always posts op-ed sourced hit pieces, this lends itself to purely subjective POV's, and these types of threads can go on for several pages as everyone bickers back and forth aimlessly.
I'd also suggest that you conduct an experiment on the next (or one of) trumptman thread started. How would this work? First exercise restraint, a thought blockade if you will. The intent here is to create an echo chamber where only those on the right respond creating a wingnut circkejerk.
Also, you have a good core group of PO posters, add to this list if possible, ask the others on your list for additional "trusted" posters, MarkUK and Hassan, come to mind for me, I'm sure there are many more who are also fed up with thumptman's silly season tactics.
We are looking for a coordinated defense that will have some sort of lasting efficacy. Silence is golden. But if this method doesn't appear to be successful, than go totally irrelevant, flood the thread with useless off topic information, very short replies (just a single word will suffice per the AO forums minimum 5 character posting requirement), or totally irrelevant images coordinated on a particulate theme de jour.
The other tactic that seems to have gained traction as of late, parrot trumptman thread topics via starting new threads using his MO. Flood PO with "thought provoking" left leaning op-ed hit pieces. But each of these has to be totally of-the-wall irreverent in content (other than the requisite op-ed link) and end with "Your thoughts?"
Heck, if you were to remove the threads started by trumptman and SDW, PO would be relatively silent. There are many more of us than there are of them. Working as a benign but coordinated defensive group will produce the desired net effects IMHO.
Please feel free to share this amongst the group. Likewise, share whatever useful input you receive from others in The Group, Inc.™
Boil all these thoughts down to the essence of the primary defensive and offensive tactics we will use going forward.
Thanks for including me within the PO cabal.
Or how about this one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent
Oh, I just had another great idea, called the "flood and bump" strategy. Start 25 threads with real newsworthy thread topics, provide a link in each to the thread topic title, add in a requisite sentence or three, get all the others to bump these 25 thought provoking thread topics with as brief as possible minimum required content possible to "pass" the AO basic posting guidelines.
That way trumptman's posts all get bumped down to page two, where it is much less likely to be read and posted to.
Or do just the opposite, like I did in a similar situation in the 2006 election cycle, bump any and all trumptman started threads to the top such that all threads on page one have trumptman as the thread strter and/or SDW as the thread starter, and/or dmz as the thread starter. The purpose here is to get the first PO forum page flooded with right leaning thread startters.
Or, just have everyone agree with trumptman's in the same malevolent rhetorical posturing he uses in whatever thread de jour is at the top of the PO topic page at any given time. He'll essentially be forced to talk with himself, since no one will disagree with his pompous propositions.
Grass roots efforts, man what a concept, let's make it work here in PO.
So once again, we see the paradox of paradoxes. Those doing the complaining are those who are engaged in the conspiracy. They manipulate the content (or lack of it in posts) and even manipulate which posts are bumped and then COMPLAIN about it. In other words they hang nooses on their own office doors and scream victimization.
They start a cabal and complain that the group attacking the person won't admit paranoia when their little group goes around engaging in all their bullying tactics. They bump the posts of a poster then complain the poster is FLOODING the forum with posts.
But most amazing of all, they try to have a discussion on credibility when the pm's show that everything they do is a blatant dishonesty, a manipulation, a sham and a lie.
How about this for credibility...
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener
There was a question of credibility raised and I was invited to respond in the appropriate thread that was referred to in regard to said question and would be dealt with by the poster who's credibility was in question.
Notice how the claim just floats out of the either. It wasn't that this POSTER brought up the credibility question, it was just that a question that wandered in out of the rain.
That lacks some credibility right there.
Why does he bring it up? It is just another ruse and more of the same. Part of flooding the forums with irrelevant responses from him includes flooding it with links to this thread. The spamming was stopped and now with hand in cookie jar, the spamming needs a justification.
It has none. The pm names and shows the tactics for what they are admitted to by the sources. The sources engage in the manipulation and then complain about the manipulation which is itself a manipulation.
You made this thread about you and tried to turn it back on those that expressed their displeasure
when you admitted to making it up.
Obtaining sympathy, opinions using a false pretense and not understanding the backlash shows the kind of arrogance that blames others instead of taking responsibility and admitting a mistake.
Credibility then comes into question on,
any future thoughts, opinions, (does he really believe that or is he just trying to get a rise out of me again?)
Personal anecdotes, credible?
Why would I believe anything when past actions show they could be made up.
Logical fallacy plays no part in those although the question remains, whether or not it's relevant to the facts.
How would you get a list of names and posts sent out via PM.
Is there a traitor in the "conspiracy"?
Interesting that you left out the author of the PM.
Could it be that something similar happened to him that your complaint to groverat was?
Could it be the "conspiracy" came to be because of your actions, no, it's their fault for not understanding you.
Your post shows your propensity to blame others in their response to your actions.
Quote:
You are absolutely right I never said I what I did was an error in judgement. I don't consider it to be such and wouldn't change what I did.
Can't this thread, a monument to colossal stupidity, just get locked and die? It lives to only serve a single ego and comes back to life at odd intervals when it seems someone needs a stroke.
It came into the internet under false pretenses and deserves to be cast into the void by never being necroed again.
I feel obliged to respond. I opened this account to PM some people, but I've comprehensively blown that notion now, so fuck it.
Generally speaking, Nick, it is considered spamming, or 'flooding' a board as you put it, when you start, say, a dozen threads within seventy-two hours.
It makes people annoyed, especially if the moderators are too clueless to act. I have bumped some of your threads to give you an example. They were all started within seventy-two hours of each other. There were others on either side, so you were, actually, a little more annoying.
You started them. New threads. Started by you. Check the dates of when these threads were started.
So don't start fucking whining about how people are all against poor little old me, and considering what to do about it. And don't try and excuse what you did as some kind of conspiracy. No-one else but you started those threads. Take some responsibility for your behaviour.
No problem Hassan or whatever your name is this week. I always feel that people who have been banned but keep reopening accounts to circumvent the board moderation have the high ground. Especially when they claim it is to PM but all their posts consists of spamming a sub-forum.
Perhaps you should look at the 72 hours before that 72 hours and note the reaction instead of the action. Perhaps the PM's I posted that include your name have dates prior to those threads and you'll note the reaction to that action.
That won't happen though. I mean really, I'm debating with a guy who has had his account banned because of his refusal to get it and the problem of course is still everyone else.
I'm sure someone somewhere gives a darn about the little crusade you and screener are on. I'm the guy laughing as you both attack windmills.
Ah, yes. Posting PRIVATE messages in a public forum. With all recipients included.
I absolutely cede the moral high ground to you, Nick. You are, truly, a class act.
Where did you get it? Are you a moderator now? Certainly explains why you can spam a forum when the political climate looks uncomfortable and not get banned.
As it happens I thought that was all foolishness and didn't really join in. I was in the southern Kalahari at the time and didn't participate in the 'Nick's a dick' webring. But whatever. You have the PM? Check the fucking dates yourself. I'm banned, so I can't.
And a word in your ear before you pick up the whine-o-phone and contact lundy about Hassan being back and he's so mean and etc.
That 'conspiracy'? You behaved terribly. You provoked it. It wasn't your politics, and it wasn't the standard of your rhetoric. It was your contempt for the community, which continues, and which is more poisonous than the ad homs you complain all the fucking time about.
I just want Mr Oops back on the board where he belongs. Is your ban permanent Hassan? I hate seeing that word in red next to some peoples' names. Some aren't missed.
Comments
That is mighty nice of you Fellowship. If I spent the time in helping out someone and it turned out it was all some big farce, i wouldn't be so quick to forget.
It is not a big deal..
Peace be with you all.
That said, I think the advice I shared with Trumpt is useful, the fact that he *is* married (as far as we can tell and according to him), this was quite nice banter. I don't really feel cheated, because my advice was offered to him and whoever was reading in general.
For me, if I had lost a lot of sleep, was a good friend, had sessions with him at several bars for several nights trying to work this out, gave him some money, then yes, I would be pissed as hell. At worst I wasted like 30 minutes on a forum I don't have much faith in anyways.
I am pretty sure the Garden of Eden did not contain GMO's
Well, according to www.rael.org ...
Just joshing with you Fellowship, you take care, ya?
It's bumpable!
Originally Posted by trumptman
I also have something to confess and I feel very terrible about this given how much work some of you put into your replies. I feel truly horrible and terrible. I lied.
Feels terrible but then goes on to say,
Originally Posted by trumptman
You are absolutely right I never said I what I did was an error in judgement. I don't consider it to be such and wouldn't change what I did.
You two as far as I can see have shared nothing and harbor an awful lot of anger. So clearly this made you discover something about yourself and you don't like what you see. I'm not going to apologize for that or take it back. You can live with it.
Let me call some bullshit on you as well. What "fallout" is there related to this? Someone believed I was troubled for two days on the internet. Did they jump into their car and come help? Did they send me some money? Aside from my mirror which some don't like, what is the fall out?
And maybe do it again.
He did you a favor.
What's the problem? What's the fallout?
From one of the better people on this forum,
Originally Posted by Fellowship
Your credibility.
I have no more time for this lab rat trick of yours. Cheers
Fellows
If Fellowship can't call it for what it is, who can?
I was irritated with this game as well. Why? First of all my sister is having problems in her marriage and I have been there for her and it takes a toll on me as well being family and all. Some of my neighbors are having money issues and I have tried to encourage them during their hard times (their money problems are due to medical costs). Then to see Nick having "stuff" going on I wanted to extend to him my friendship in time of need also.
For the rug to be jerked out and Nick saying.... I lied to you all
It pissed me off. Being a Christian I forgive Nick right away but my goodness I hope Nick does not do this kind of stuff in the future. It is not cool to jerk around people in some kind of trick.
And Nick don't get on Shawn or any other posters here as if this is about some kind of fault on their behalf. This entire thread is your doing Nick. OWN that and move on.
Fellows
Why you continue to engage him in any sort of conversation is your burden. Ignore him and he'll eventually simply die from the lack of attention.
Why you continue to engage him in any sort of conversation is your burden. Ignore him and he'll eventually simply die from the lack of attention.
Well, SOMEBODY wanted to talk about this some more, hence the bump.
Well, SOMEBODY wanted to talk about this some more, hence the bump.
I'm thinking someone wanted to continue the annoying tendency of attacking the person instead of the position, so they dredged up some old shit to throw back in his face.
I guess if that's all you got and you're not honest enough to admit it, attacking the poster instead of the post looks attractive.
How do you gage the credibility of someone?
By looking at past actions is a good place to start, especially in an anonymous internet forum.
If you don't agree or care, that's fine, but there are others that don't like being caught up in a hoax that brought out sincere emotional responses and then being chastised for letting their emotions rule when showing their disgust.
I don't think it's a valid excuse not to address specific positions you don't agree with, though.
Throwing around the word "credibility" doesn't mean a whole lot in a setting such as this, as none of us can truly establish our own credibility without coming out from under our comfortable (and protective) cloaks of anonymity.
I try not to take things too personally on the interwebz and address the issues rather than the people raising them. I will admit I sometimes fail at this, myself.
But good grief. It's the interwebz.
Oh but I do, indirectly when possible.
I only heard about this thread a couple of months ago when a now banned member brought it up.
I thought the premise was bad, but the defense of it was telling.
You can ruin your credibility.
As for coming out of a cloak of anonymity, fine if you do it yourself, but that's another story.
Some do to a greater extant than most and won't look in the mirror and try to understand why it ends up being about them.
In reality, something is ether true or it isnt true. The person presenting the information is really nothing more than a vessel for that information. If the vessel is bad, the information is not bad and likewise is the vessel is awesome and great, the information does not become awesome and great.
Believing credibility alters information is a logical fallacy.
However in speaking to credibilitity perhaps we should look at this...
Flounder ; screener ; tonton ; giant ; @_@ Artman ; Outsider ; FormerLurker ; hardeeharhar ; groverat ; Northgate ; addabox ; midwinter; BRussell ; franksargent ; Hassan i Sabbah ; MarcUK ;
This was the list of people who engaged in a PM discussion to manipulate the board. I think I see the name of a certain person bumping this thread and several more who have been banned.
Let's take one of the names on that list, a moderator at the time and see how he responded to an legitimate claim of harassment.
I don't give a shit. I quit being a moderator about two months ago.
I don't fucking care. Shove it up your ass and die of cancer.
Respect the privacy of fellow forum members. Hopefully this will not be an issue, but do not post personal information or pictures of a member without that member's approval. Disputed information will be deleted.
I don't want to be a "drama queen" but giant is posting my personal information in this post. It contains one of my street addresses.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...45&postcount=9
I would appreciate you deleting it and I personally feel he is attempting to harass and intimidate with it. I can't think of a legitimate reason for him to even accidentally post an address associated with me except to try to show he is acting in a manner comparable to a stalker.
Hmmmmm.... I'm not feeling the love there are you?
How about this guy we call franksargent, let's see what he has to say about how to post.
Originally Posted by franksargent
Personally, I'm not one for using ignore lists.
In the case of trumptman, it's the silly season, meaning an election cycle, everything he's posted lately has been Obama related and always with a severe negative slant.
If there is something factually incorrect, meaning that there is objective information that refutes his nonsense, it seems to me that this should be used to counter that specific point and deserves to be posted.
I thing the most effective response to our one man Obama wrecking machine is to flood those threads with totally unrelated replies, keep them short, totally irrelevant to the subject de jour, posts totally random images, etceteras.
Trumptman almost always posts op-ed sourced hit pieces, this lends itself to purely subjective POV's, and these types of threads can go on for several pages as everyone bickers back and forth aimlessly.
I'd also suggest that you conduct an experiment on the next (or one of) trumptman thread started. How would this work? First exercise restraint, a thought blockade if you will. The intent here is to create an echo chamber where only those on the right respond creating a wingnut circkejerk.
Also, you have a good core group of PO posters, add to this list if possible, ask the others on your list for additional "trusted" posters, MarkUK and Hassan, come to mind for me, I'm sure there are many more who are also fed up with thumptman's silly season tactics.
We are looking for a coordinated defense that will have some sort of lasting efficacy. Silence is golden. But if this method doesn't appear to be successful, than go totally irrelevant, flood the thread with useless off topic information, very short replies (just a single word will suffice per the AO forums minimum 5 character posting requirement), or totally irrelevant images coordinated on a particulate theme de jour.
The other tactic that seems to have gained traction as of late, parrot trumptman thread topics via starting new threads using his MO. Flood PO with "thought provoking" left leaning op-ed hit pieces. But each of these has to be totally of-the-wall irreverent in content (other than the requisite op-ed link) and end with "Your thoughts?"
Heck, if you were to remove the threads started by trumptman and SDW, PO would be relatively silent. There are many more of us than there are of them. Working as a benign but coordinated defensive group will produce the desired net effects IMHO.
Please feel free to share this amongst the group. Likewise, share whatever useful input you receive from others in The Group, Inc.™
Boil all these thoughts down to the essence of the primary defensive and offensive tactics we will use going forward.
Thanks for including me within the PO cabal.
Or how about this one?
Originally Posted by franksargent
Oh, I just had another great idea, called the "flood and bump" strategy. Start 25 threads with real newsworthy thread topics, provide a link in each to the thread topic title, add in a requisite sentence or three, get all the others to bump these 25 thought provoking thread topics with as brief as possible minimum required content possible to "pass" the AO basic posting guidelines.
That way trumptman's posts all get bumped down to page two, where it is much less likely to be read and posted to.
Or do just the opposite, like I did in a similar situation in the 2006 election cycle, bump any and all trumptman started threads to the top such that all threads on page one have trumptman as the thread strter and/or SDW as the thread starter, and/or dmz as the thread starter. The purpose here is to get the first PO forum page flooded with right leaning thread startters.
Or, just have everyone agree with trumptman's in the same malevolent rhetorical posturing he uses in whatever thread de jour is at the top of the PO topic page at any given time. He'll essentially be forced to talk with himself, since no one will disagree with his pompous propositions.
Grass roots efforts, man what a concept, let's make it work here in PO.
So once again, we see the paradox of paradoxes. Those doing the complaining are those who are engaged in the conspiracy. They manipulate the content (or lack of it in posts) and even manipulate which posts are bumped and then COMPLAIN about it. In other words they hang nooses on their own office doors and scream victimization.
They start a cabal and complain that the group attacking the person won't admit paranoia when their little group goes around engaging in all their bullying tactics. They bump the posts of a poster then complain the poster is FLOODING the forum with posts.
But most amazing of all, they try to have a discussion on credibility when the pm's show that everything they do is a blatant dishonesty, a manipulation, a sham and a lie.
How about this for credibility...
There was a question of credibility raised and I was invited to respond in the appropriate thread that was referred to in regard to said question and would be dealt with by the poster who's credibility was in question.
Notice how the claim just floats out of the either. It wasn't that this POSTER brought up the credibility question, it was just that a question that wandered in out of the rain.
That lacks some credibility right there.
Why does he bring it up? It is just another ruse and more of the same. Part of flooding the forums with irrelevant responses from him includes flooding it with links to this thread. The spamming was stopped and now with hand in cookie jar, the spamming needs a justification.
It has none. The pm names and shows the tactics for what they are admitted to by the sources. The sources engage in the manipulation and then complain about the manipulation which is itself a manipulation.
Quite the paradox...
when you admitted to making it up.
Obtaining sympathy, opinions using a false pretense and not understanding the backlash shows the kind of arrogance that blames others instead of taking responsibility and admitting a mistake.
Credibility then comes into question on,
any future thoughts, opinions, (does he really believe that or is he just trying to get a rise out of me again?)
Personal anecdotes, credible?
Why would I believe anything when past actions show they could be made up.
Logical fallacy plays no part in those although the question remains, whether or not it's relevant to the facts.
How would you get a list of names and posts sent out via PM.
Is there a traitor in the "conspiracy"?
Interesting that you left out the author of the PM.
Could it be that something similar happened to him that your complaint to groverat was?
Could it be the "conspiracy" came to be because of your actions, no, it's their fault for not understanding you.
Your post shows your propensity to blame others in their response to your actions.
You are absolutely right I never said I what I did was an error in judgement. I don't consider it to be such and wouldn't change what I did.
And still hasn't.
It came into the internet under false pretenses and deserves to be cast into the void by never being necroed again.
Generally speaking, Nick, it is considered spamming, or 'flooding' a board as you put it, when you start, say, a dozen threads within seventy-two hours.
It makes people annoyed, especially if the moderators are too clueless to act. I have bumped some of your threads to give you an example. They were all started within seventy-two hours of each other. There were others on either side, so you were, actually, a little more annoying.
You started them. New threads. Started by you. Check the dates of when these threads were started.
So don't start fucking whining about how people are all against poor little old me, and considering what to do about it. And don't try and excuse what you did as some kind of conspiracy. No-one else but you started those threads. Take some responsibility for your behaviour.
Perhaps you should look at the 72 hours before that 72 hours and note the reaction instead of the action. Perhaps the PM's I posted that include your name have dates prior to those threads and you'll note the reaction to that action.
That won't happen though. I mean really, I'm debating with a guy who has had his account banned because of his refusal to get it and the problem of course is still everyone else.
I'm sure someone somewhere gives a darn about the little crusade you and screener are on. I'm the guy laughing as you both attack windmills.
I absolutely cede the moral high ground to you, Nick. You are, truly, a class act.
Where did you get it? Are you a moderator now? Certainly explains why you can spam a forum when the political climate looks uncomfortable and not get banned.
As it happens I thought that was all foolishness and didn't really join in. I was in the southern Kalahari at the time and didn't participate in the 'Nick's a dick' webring. But whatever. You have the PM? Check the fucking dates yourself. I'm banned, so I can't.
And a word in your ear before you pick up the whine-o-phone and contact lundy about Hassan being back and he's so mean and etc.
That 'conspiracy'? You behaved terribly. You provoked it. It wasn't your politics, and it wasn't the standard of your rhetoric. It was your contempt for the community, which continues, and which is more poisonous than the ad homs you complain all the fucking time about.