Oh Boy...I'm gonna get nailed for this one.

[QSmokey]

Thats the problem. Not everybody knows that. So some members take it as me not madding fairly. If you guys are going to joke around at least mention its a joke and that both parties are cool with it. Its soo fucking hard to mod this place because the rule is pretty black and white.

I put a couple of smilies after the comment. Sorry for the confusion.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

. That said, I am waiting to pass judgment on Te'o until the end of next year.

Why turn over a new leaf now?

[Gwynning_Spirit]

please don't use the L word.

[Panama]

Thats the problem. Not everybody knows that. So some members take it as me not modding fairly. If you guys are going to joke around at least mention its a joke and that both parties are cool with it. Its soo fucking hard to mod this place because the rule is pretty black and white.

Not to belabour the point -- ok, maybe just a bit, as I'm a right stubborn bastard -- if someone makes a stupid argument -- and who hasn't done or said stupid things? -- one that deserves to be shot down, we can't point out that it is? It should have been clear, from the fact that I began the post with "no offense intended" and from Q's copious use of smileys, that offense was neither intended nor taken. One doesn't need to know that Q and I have a history online and in person to see that my attack on his idea is not an attack on his person. And it should, I would have thought, be the ad hominem attacks that should be proscribed. I think it's far more offensive that I call ScreechOwl ScreechOwl because I grow tired of his ad nauseam repetition -- thank you for not banning Latin phrases, as someone suggested a few weeks back -- than that I call an idea that is, well, stupid stupid. Is it just the word "stupid" that is objectionable. If I can't call a spade a spade, can I call it a narrow, flat iron blade attached to a wooden pole? If I say that an argument makes as much sense as a ferret in heat or as Vicky Pollard (which is about the same -- go on, look her up on YouTube, thank me later), is that as objectionable as using the word "stupid" to describe it? I should get to the point -- I had a point? I thought I was just being stupid! -- oh, yeah, the point: I understand that we don't make your job easy with all this bickering, and that you have to (appear to) be equal and fair in your treatment of everyone, but I think most of us are discriminating enough to tell from the context of a post whether someone is attacking another individual or just taking him to task for an ill-considered statement. Yes, I could have chosen a different word, and I will from now on, but don't you think that anyone that objects to the use of that word in that particular context might perhaps be a smidgeon hypersensitive?

Anyway, I'm not particularly trying to ruffle your feathers. So, to show my good intentions, I will now Hayek my own post: :salma:

[Fleet]

Not to belabour the point -- ok, maybe just a bit, as I'm a right stubborn bastard -- if someone makes a stupid argument -- and who hasn't done or said stupid things? -- one that deserves to be shot down, we can't point out that it is? It should have been clear, from the fact that I began the post with "no offense intended" and from Q's copious use of smileys, that offense was neither intended nor taken. One doesn't need to know that Q and I have a history online and in person to see that my attack on his idea is not an attack on his person. And it should, I would have thought, be the ad hominem attacks that should be proscribed. I think it's far more offensive that I call ScreechOwl ScreechOwl because I grow tired of his ad nauseam repetition -- thank you for not banning Latin phrases, as someone suggested a few weeks back -- than that I call an idea that is, well, stupid stupid. Is it just the word "stupid" that is objectionable. If I can't call a spade a spade, can I call it a narrow, flat iron blade attached to a wooden pole? If I say that an argument makes as much sense as a ferret in heat or as Vicky Pollard (which is about the same -- go on, look her up on YouTube, thank me later), is that as objectionable as using the word "stupid" to describe it? I should get to the point -- I had a point? I thought I was just being stupid! -- oh, yeah, the point: I understand that we don't make your job easy with all this bickering, and that you have to (appear to) be equal and fair in your treatment of everyone, but I think most of us are discriminating enough to tell from the context of a post whether someone is attacking another individual or just taking him to task for an ill-considered statement. Yes, I could have chosen a different word, and I will from now on, but don't you think that anyone that objects to the use of that word in that particular context might perhaps be a smidgeon hypersensitive?

Anyway, I'm not particularly trying to ruffle your feathers. So, to show my good intentions, I will now Hayek my own post: :salma:

So you cant shoot down a theory you disagree with or think is stupid without calling the poster stupid or making the reference of it? No offense but your being stupid, Thats something we dont do here. It ruffles others feathers not my own. And if you havnt noticed we've lost a few posters. If someone like you says something stupid or i dont agree with i can simply say things like "I disagree" without trying to make the poster feel like hes an idiot. And just because you disagree with someone or think they are saying stupid shit dosnt mean that it is to them. I think we need to be able to accept all posters here and their opinions.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Not to belabour the point -- ok, maybe just a bit, as I'm a right stubborn bastard -- if someone makes a stupid argument -- and who hasn't done or said stupid things? -- one that deserves to be shot down, we can't point out that it is? It should have been clear, from the fact that I began the post with "no offense intended" and from Q's copious use of smileys, that offense was neither intended nor taken. One doesn't need to know that Q and I have a history online and in person to see that my attack on his idea is not an attack on his person. And it should, I would have thought, be the ad hominem attacks that should be proscribed. I think it's far more offensive that I call ScreechOwl ScreechOwl because I grow tired of his ad nauseam repetition -- thank you for not banning Latin phrases, as someone suggested a few weeks back -- than that I call an idea that is, well, stupid stupid. Is it just the word "stupid" that is objectionable. If I can't call a spade a spade, can I call it a narrow, flat iron blade attached to a wooden pole? If I say that an argument makes as much sense as a ferret in heat or as Vicky Pollard (which is about the same -- go on, look her up on YouTube, thank me later), is that as objectionable as using the word "stupid" to describe it? I should get to the point -- I had a point? I thought I was just being stupid! -- oh, yeah, the point: I understand that we don't make your job easy with all this bickering, and that you have to (appear to) be equal and fair in your treatment of everyone, but I think most of us are discriminating enough to tell from the context of a post whether someone is attacking another individual or just taking him to task for an ill-considered statement. Yes, I could have chosen a different word, and I will from now on, but don't you think that anyone that objects to the use of that word in that particular context might perhaps be a smidgeon hypersensitive?

Anyway, I'm not particularly trying to ruffle your feathers. So, to show my good intentions, I will now Hayek my own post: :salma:

Oh shut up you stupid MF'er.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

And if you havnt noticed we've lost a few posters.

Not the right ones.

:goodbeer:

[Panama]

Oh shut up you stupid MF'er.

Damn it! "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR again." WTF?!

[Panama]

I think we need to be able to accept all posters here and their opinions.

Can we get a candle-waving smiley?

Of course we need to accept all posters. No offense was intended to Q. If anyone else took offense, well, um, I'll bite my metaphorical tongue on that one.

And we need to accept that all posters have opinions, but we don't need to accept those opinions. Otherwise, we would have to accept that Atari Bigby would make this defense -- bringing this back to the Chargers -- hum like a Commodore 64, which is just... um... such an enlightened thought that it exceeds my meagre powers of comprehension. (Is sarcasm auch verboten?)

[Fleet]

Can we get a candle-waving smiley?

Of course we need to accept all posters. No offense was intended to Q. If anyone else took offense, well, um, I'll bite my metaphorical tongue on that one.

And we need to accept that all posters have opinions, but we don't need to accept those opinions. Otherwise, we would have to accept that Atari Bigby would make this defense -- bringing this back to the Chargers -- hum like a Commodore 64, which is just... um... such an enlightened thought that it exceeds my meagre powers of comprehension. (Is sarcasm auch verboten?)

Exactly. You dont have to accept those opinions. You just need to express your opposite opinion with something other than "your stupid".

I didnt know you and Q were joking. His smileys mean nothing to me. He could kill his dog Kodi and use 10 smileys afterwards. Dudes psycho. I figured since i banned Den for a week Q was saying i should at least warn you if im going to ban Den. Members will report posts if they seem like they are a personal attack.

[Boltx]

So wait, are we trading Rivers or not?

I expect a Hershel Walker-esque bounty in reward.

[QSmokey]

Exactly. You dont have to accept those opinions. You just need to express your opposite opinion with something other than "your stupid".

I didnt know you and Q were joking. His smileys mean nothing to me. He could kill his dog Kodi and use 10 smileys afterwards. Dudes psycho. I figured since i banned Den for a week Q was saying i should at least warn you if im going to ban Den. Members will report posts if they seem like they are a personal attack.

You must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed today, Amigo. Maybe you should ban yourself for a week??? (No smilies)