RE: FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS?

RE: FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

[Poll]

FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS?

FOR

83% (64)

AGAINST

16% (13)

Total Votes : 77

(last vote on : 8/31/2010 9:12:33 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

VideoAdminAlpha -> RE: FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS? (8/31/2010 9:32:16 AM)
Dammit, I could tell you where I put them but then.........has to get herself from being all distracted by all the womanly wiles here again, I can't put them here.(Might give some gents leads on what TO do, and cant have that. I want my game to stay tight)[;)]

GreedyTop -> RE: FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS? (8/31/2010 9:32:56 AM)
fondles VAA

LadyPact -> RE: FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS? (8/31/2010 9:34:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BentUnit Baby, You're using rational logic on a creature who has no concept of the idea. What you are doing here, while heroic and noble, is the equivalent of pushing shit up-hill with a pointy stick. Of course, there are much better uses for pointy sticks. I'm thinking roasted troll over an open fire, with said stick shoved firmly up a specific orifice.

BentUnit -> RE: FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS? (8/31/2010 9:34:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SorceressJ VAA: there where should we put Your "secret methods", hmm? waggles an eyebrow I have nothing else to say to the OP, and strongly recommend that he refrain from posting in my inbox like he did last summer when I disagreed with him, when he was blacklion. "The crusty smegma scrapings from the tattered, festered foreskin of a syphilic Warthog" seems to have me on ignore and hasn't made any deposits in my in-box. I'm not at all sure if I should feel pleased or upset.

Hillwilliam -> RE: FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS? (8/31/2010 9:36:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Daddysredhead quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminAlpha Ssssssshhhhhh, and anyway, the veiled was why I got away with it, thankies!!!! I like to think in the beginning before I had my fill of some posters "who may or may not have had the attributes of trolldom" I actually had some very serious, thoughtful posts. One can only want to play "whack a troll" for so long before has to figure out how to do it and not get in trouble or explode from not sayin anything...... disclaimer: the above actions seemingly designed to get around moderation are mythical and are not being claimed by Me to be effective.....just sayin......[;)] I find that saying "Bless your heart" kinda works, but I'm Southern like that. [;)] One great thing aout livin in the South. You can say anything you want about someone as long as you also say "Bless their heart"

SorceressJ -> RE: FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS? (8/31/2010 9:37:09 AM)
VAA: You want Your "what" to stay tight?! [sm=jaw.gif]

VideoAdminAlpha -> RE: FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS? (8/31/2010 9:37:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminAlpha 1)You are NOT a newbie by your own statements. 2) Sarcasm is not your strong suit,even though you think it is. 3) Trim your fuckin quotes..........or I will trim them for you.....please. Polite enough? As another member who does her best to stay within that 'thinly veiled' dance with TOS (I highly doubt there are many who are unaware of that) I have a quick question for verification. Since the name calling subject has come up so often, is it still name calling if it's true? Just a random example to help illustrate. Let's say someone creates a thread and during the course of that thread, it's proven that he's a liar. Is it acceptable to call that person a liar? Why would that be different than any other description with another interchangeable term. One for Myself, perhaps, such as Domme. Where does the line get drawn? Let's say someone is proven a liar. Can we add adjectives such as untrustworthy liar or pathetic liar? Can we change the term to useless and untrustworthy if someone is a known liar? Of course, most people have some self respect and wouldn't want to be caught lying in the first place and would never say something that would cause someone to accuse them of having so little worth in character, but what would happen if we had an OP that had so little integrity? Is that acceptable? I would think that if someone pointed out the plainly observable or not so plainly observable lie, and said that (for example) "by your statements, SOME (not me of course just saying others) would call someone that did what you did a patently pathetic fucking liar who is wasting our air space" acceptable. See the difference?[;)]

VideoAdminAlpha -> RE: FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS? (8/31/2010 9:39:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SorceressJ VAA: You want Your "what" to stay tight?! [sm=jaw.gif] Honey, what you are alluding to is SO tight, even wet would be an adventure to enter that promised land....I have references [;)]

LadyHibiscus -> RE: FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS? (8/31/2010 9:39:12 AM)
Yep, totally my role model!![:D]

BentUnit -> RE: FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS? (8/31/2010 9:39:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminAlpha quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminAlpha 1)You are NOT a newbie by your own statements. 2) Sarcasm is not your strong suit,even though you think it is. 3) Trim your fuckin quotes..........or I will trim them for you.....please. Polite enough? As another member who does her best to stay within that 'thinly veiled' dance with TOS (I highly doubt there are many who are unaware of that) I have a quick question for verification. Since the name calling subject has come up so often, is it still name calling if it's true? Just a random example to help illustrate. Let's say someone creates a thread and during the course of that thread, it's proven that he's a liar. Is it acceptable to call that person a liar? Why would that be different than any other description with another interchangeable term. One for Myself, perhaps, such as Domme. Where does the line get drawn? Let's say someone is proven a liar. Can we add adjectives such as untrustworthy liar or pathetic liar? Can we change the term to useless and untrustworthy if someone is a known liar? Of course, most people have some self respect and wouldn't want to be caught lying in the first place and would never say something that would cause someone to accuse them of having so little worth in character, but what would happen if we had an OP that had so little integrity? Is that acceptable? I would think that if someone pointed out the plainly observable or not so plainly observable lie, and said that (for example) "by your statements, SOME (not me of course just saying others) would call someone that did what you did a patently pathetic fucking liar who is wasting our air space" acceptable. See the difference?[;)] I think it's just easier to cal them oxygen bandits, VAA. [;)]

VideoAdminAlpha -> RE: FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS? (8/31/2010 9:40:54 AM)
Like unfortunately some good things come to an end, while others seem to take fuckin forever to go away, this thread is locked, but left up for those that choose to read it for entertainment(should they find any in it, I know I did) value.

SorceressJ -> RE: FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS? (8/31/2010 9:40:56 AM)
Oh, I see! (said the blind man to his deaf wife as he picked up his hammer and saw): insults must be subtle.. I'm a writer, I can do this! [:)] Duly noted, thank You very much for the advice, VAA..

ModTwentyOne -> RE: FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS? (8/31/2010 9:41:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy [Awaiting Approval] quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminSigma [Awaiting Approval] quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub [Awaiting Approval] quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse [Awaiting Approval] quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven [Awaiting Approval] The peanut gallery has enlarged exponentially, we see.

VideoAdminAlpha -> RE: FOR MODERATORS OR AGAINST MODERATORS? (8/31/2010 9:43:19 AM)
That just means that unfortunately they didnt get that the OP asked for a free for all on this thread.

Page: << < prev 15 16 17 18 [19]

Spam Policy

6.640625E-02