quote:
Comrade Snoota spewed forth this undeniable truth:
But you said always.
I'll always love you, Snoots.
quote:
Lyinar Ka`Bael wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
And Tril, that wasn't directed at your argument. It was Bajah's statement I was responding to. Although I do think you were less assertive than you could have been. You could easily have just given your opinion, but I think you put far too much value on the opinions of the boneheads around here and that holds you back from expressing yourself.[/QB]
I've stated my opinion in the past and got flamed to no fucking end. I'm shitty at defending myself in public, and I like to avoid it as much as possible. That and I hate being concidered an idiot because of what I feel and think. Reguardless if people say it or not, it feels like it.
Bloodsage has that nice habbit of doing it, and I knew as soon as I opened my mouth about what I believed in, he'd have a feild day.
Hell he did it in Parce's thread, and I didn't even get into it, I left it at a simplafied answer, like Parce wanted. He didn't want any kinda indepth answers, he just wanted a single straight one. Granted I didn't chose one of the areas he posted.
So questions like Old Hickory asked me (not Bloodsage, not Naimah, ME) are best to be asked in a PM.
[ 06-12-2003: Message edited by: Trillee ]
*edit* I ushe ingrish gud
quote:
Naimah wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
When did this come to involve you anyways Bajah? You were not involved in any of the religion threads.
When you posted this in a public thread. LOL OMG WTF
quote:
Check out the big brain on Naimah!
No one else seems to want to use PMs.
No, it's just that no one else wants to use PMs with you.
quote:
Verily, Comrade Snoota doth proclaim:
No, it's just that no one else wants to use PMs with you.
You always have to use protection when PMing strangers. They say it's like you're PMing everyone they've ever PMed without protection, too.
Theoretically, I think you could PM yourself if he's PMed around enough.
quote:
Bajah wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Hey, if D gets to have incredibly stupid in his title for messing up, why do I still have that goddamn smiley for doing the same thing?
what
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Bajah said:
Hey, if D gets to have incredibly stupid in his title for messing up, why do I still have that goddamn smiley for doing the same thing?
"Dude!" What does mine say?
quote:
D's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
"Dude!" What does mine say?
"SWEET!" Now what's mine say?
quote:
Freschel Spindrift's fortune cookie read:
Kat quick distribute the cookies of goodness and snuggles, and while I let loose the puppies, kittens, and Bunnies into this post. Don't worry there will be enough of them to go around.
Havoc! <unleashes the Cookie-Monsters of War!>
<passes around cookies and tail-snuggles aplenty> 
[ 06-12-2003: Message edited by: Fizodeth ]
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Bajah said:
I'll concede to your point. Perhaps I did use too strong of words. But I think we both now see each other's points.. aye?
Yes, absolutes just bother me in cases like that. But I think I just have more faith in ECers to behave themselves 
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
But! I apologized. And I'm glad Drys cracked it back open.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Drysart spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Ok shitheads. Now only subscribers can lock their own threads. Enjoy.
Interesting call. I hope it's enough.
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
quote:
Trillee enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
DO YOU NOT READ THREADS LIKE THAT IN THE PAST???They *ALWAYS* turn into huge flame fests. I think there MIGHT have been one that didn't.
AND DID YOU NOT READ WERE I SAID HE DID COME TO ME IN PMs??
And the email thing... what the hell does it matter to you? Email or PM, it's a PRIVATE conversation.
Bullshit. You are the only one who spazzed in that thread, and, though your name was in the title, the actual conversation had nothing whatever to do with you.
Further, I linked to a completely flame-free thread on the exact same subject quite recently. And I was told the locking had nothing to do with you and your whining.
~~~
This kind of bullshit is why I was against giving back the ability to lock threads. Too many people think they own the damned conversation, and whine and cry like 2-year-olds when it doesn't go exactly as planned.
There are already rules regarding flaming and appropriate conduct, and moderators to ban those who violate them. We hardly need a bunch of whining vigilantes, each trying to enforce a personal vision of happy-fun land.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Duck Tales:
This kind of bullshit is why I was against giving back the ability to lock threads. Too many people think they own the damned conversation, and whine and cry like 2-year-olds when it doesn't go exactly as planned.There are already rules regarding flaming and appropriate conduct, and moderators to ban those who violate them. We hardly need a bunch of whining vigilantes, each trying to enforce a personal vision of happy-fun land.
Just to be fair, wouldn't you say that if they started a thread with a specific target in mind, that it's fair to want to achieve that target as long as said target is reasonable? I could understand this sort of attitude towards threads that are just attention-grabbers or singleminded "praise this and only this, everything else sucks" threads, but on a legitimate thread, they have put forth a topic, they should have the privelage to want the thread to go a certain direction, shouldn't they?
Oh well, my fault on both counts. 
I had several PM's with both Trille and Bloodsage when the thread was locked. Those PM's were polite and civil.
I didn't mind the debate with Sage. There was nothing personal or offensive between us.
Trille was quite aware I wasn't attacking or insulting her beliefs. Nor did she feel I was forcing her to defend herself. The questions I asked her were questions from an ongoing religious discussion I've been having with a friend. The questions posed to Trille were the very questions I posed to my friend. I asked Trille to respond to my questions and the answers given to me for another point of view from someone who follows a similiar pagan faith. To see if I could gain a better understanding or if the answers my friend gave weren't accurate enough to clarify themselves.
I locked the thread because of Namiah. Now, I am not offended by namiah nor hold any ill will. I just didn't want the thread to degenerate into OMG! You are attacking someone and trying to debunk what they believe! The thread looked like it would go that way.
And in no way do I feel Trille whined. She posted she would be glad to answer my questions, but would feel more comfortable doing so in private. I respected that.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Rurouni Densetsu!
Trillee has more than one E in her name. And less than three Es.
Come on, Rurouni Densets, I think Old_Hickor knows what he's typing.
Though it could be easy to take something like that the wrong way. At times it seems there are people here that just enjoy being smug by trying to make people look like asses.
quote:
Rurouni Densetsu wrote this stupid crap:
Trillee has more than one E in her name. And less than three Es.
It's ok Dens... NPCs in game drop my second E too. I'm used to it.
*hugs Old Hickory*
When I need/want to talk to Parcelan about D&D stuff, I don't open a new thread just to say "Hey man what did you think of this book?". I send him a PM. So when you open a thread, keep in mind that, as has been said, things might not go entirely the way you want.
Also, keep in mind that the rules put a lot of strength in the thread originator. If you're going to broach a subject that could be sensitive and don't want to end up having to lock your thread, set up some basic rules about behavior. You can't exclude specific individuals from your thread, but you can certainly invoke the "hey man I posted rules don't be a dickwad in my thread" clause of things.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
A sleep deprived Fizodeth stammered:
Just to be fair, wouldn't you say that if they started a thread with a specific target in mind, that it's fair to want to achieve that target as long as said target is reasonable? I could understand this sort of attitude towards threads that are just attention-grabbers or singleminded "praise this and only this, everything else sucks" threads, but on a legitimate thread, they have put forth a topic, they should have the privelage to want the thread to go a certain direction, shouldn't they?
As a matter of fact, I think it's both rude and in poor taste to ramrod a conversation in a particular direction. Just as it's rude and in poor taste to hijack a thread with totally off-topic bullshit.
In general, of course.
But conversations evolve. As 'Deth astutely pointed out, PMs are the appropriate venue if one desires only to speak to a particular person. And simply because one is mentioned by name doesn't give one veto power over the content of the rest of the thread.
The cool thing about conversation is one can never tell where it'll go. If the journey gets unpleasant, then disembark--but don't try to drag everyone else with you. There are already forum rules and people to enforce them.
We are in a public forum. One doesn't have a loud conversation about intensely personal matters in a restaurant, for example, then bitch at the people three feet away at the next table because they listened. If you want one-on-one, take it to PMs.
Otherwise, let's get back in the habit of intelligent conversation on a variety of topics. Without all the immature, "It's my thread, you have to be Smurfy if you want to post here," crap.*
*While certain types of threads to, indeed, merit special rules of conduct, the vast majority do not. Research for school, RP, and some others, for example, have special rulesets.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
