Topic: Glad to see I'm right afterall
+On !Uvm54ORbmo — 11.4 years ago #41,114
Bert is alcoholic intoxicated to a level incapable to learn and is permanently fucked up.
Syntax sorry to say that but your impression of good-o-Bert is invalid.
+Syntax — 11.4 years ago, 10 minutes later[T] [B] #449,075
Wot did I miss?
·On !Uvm54ORbmo (OP) — 11.4 years ago, 28 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #449,079
@previous (Syntax )
bulletins
·Syntax — 11.4 years ago, 7 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #449,081
@previous (On !Uvm54ORbmo)
er
So I see this
> something is terribly wrong when someone attempts to prevent free speech...just saying.. ? 54 minutes
And see your
> Someone is terribly fucked up when failed to learn NOT TO VIOLATE RULES through MULTIPLE warnings and bans, and has to blame his own incompetency to others, just saying.
I can only assume stuff went on behind close doors as in PM's?
So lets air out the dirty laundry - I have no doubt you are correct on your take because so far I have yet to see you make a bad mod decision - but some more info wood help clue me in as well as a couple of others here
·On !Uvm54ORbmo (OP) — 11.4 years ago, 5 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #449,083
@previous (Syntax )
that's all to see, no backstage stuff
but taking free speech as excuses to rule violation? that's enough to show he is beyond redemption
know who else take free speech as scapegoat? Kimmo
·Syntax — 11.4 years ago, 6 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #449,084
@previous (On !Uvm54ORbmo)
So let me see if I have this correct.
His return to TC is a post that says
> something is terribly wrong when someone attempts to prevent free speech...just saying.. ? 54 minutes
That is just weird.
1: Its not written in his drunk mode - so its coherent. Over on SC I suggested he thank
You for the consideration of allowing him to return.
Just makes no sense to me. Its typical for him to fuck up eventually after drinking to much - a pattern I know all to well.
Don't really know what to say.
Did see another bulletin I will be sure to have some fun with in the near future
·On !Uvm54ORbmo (OP) — 11.4 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #449,085
@previous (Syntax )
> Over on SC I suggested he thank You for the consideration of allowing him to return.
Yes I saw that, but you know, like he turned onto you when you didn't take his side for the b&, he refuse to listen to what he does not want to listen.
+FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 11.4 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #449,086
@previous (On !Uvm54ORbmo)
For what it's worth, it's
possible that the bulletin was posted by a troll. Mods have no way of knowing.
·Syntax — 11.4 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #449,087
@449,085 (On !Uvm54ORbmo)
That turn back at me. I told you I have always told him what I thought about how he fucks up in public. Does no good to have a net buddy and then take his side when he has fucked a forum over.
The guy understands rules because he was in the Navy. And as to free speech. I have been on net since days of dial up at 4.8KBS and every attempt at pure free speech has been fucked over by some wacko.
One example was back when their was a literature forum that FatFuck used. No mods so of course it ended up getting flooded out with scat shit by Matt. Eventually the owner just gave up after a few years.
Kimmo and his free speech LOLOLOL - One sperling error and he wood go bat shit crazy - Fired mods for not taking action and when he discovered a Mod with poor grammar all hell broke loose.
Well thanks for trying. In 15+ years I have never seen him get back in after a ban and then end up banned so quickly.
·Syntax — 11.4 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #449,088
@449,086 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
> For what it's worth, it's possible that the bulletin was posted by a troll. Mods have no way of knowing.
Well in that case lets wait and see what bert has to say. I left him a post on SC. Even when full on drunk I have yet to see bert ever lie.
·On !Uvm54ORbmo (OP) — 11.4 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #449,089
@449,087 (Syntax )
> In 15+ years I have never seen him get back in after a ban and then end up banned so quickly.
Oh no no no, I didn't b& him again (yet), he's still free to post/threaten/stalk around TC unless he crossed the line again.
That bulletin, as frustrating as it is, crossed no lines.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
·On !Uvm54ORbmo (OP) — 11.4 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #449,090
@449,086 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
But the bulletin reeks of alcohol
·Syntax — 11.4 years ago, 1 second later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #449,091
@449,089 (On !Uvm54ORbmo)
Wheeeeewwwww
OK cause that is not his pattern - that said if he did make the post he will fess up to it. I am surprised to see nothing from him today
Not that I expect a full on apology, but I did expect something.
·On !Uvm54ORbmo (OP) — 11.4 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #449,092
@previous (Syntax )
> Not that I expect a full on apology, but I did expect something.
He expected apology
FROM ME. I wouldn't expect anything other than threats and rages from him.
·Syntax — 11.4 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #449,093
@previous (On !Uvm54ORbmo)
I figure its worth a copypasta in this thread - If you step back even though he is beating the shit out of you - I kinda laffed at his post
hey fuckalms...I am asking for your help..
ON banned me yesterday...his reason was that I used what he calls "matt shtick"....... now...that instance you must remember...was I'm the Ducky's mom snores post.....and you gave me that 'warning' in red font..
well...I took that warning from you seriously fuckalms....and I was fully intending to refrain from such....but then ON came along and banned me...like the over zealous hysterical maniac that he is..
and so I thought maybe you would have stepped up and said you had already taken action on the matter and things were under control and the nam was unnecessary......so I looked in this morning to check....and WHAT do I see??
another ban PM that was DELIVERED WHILE I WAS ASLEEP...and get this...it was ON and he was GUESSING.....yes GUESSING that some post he saw last night was me...evading the ban (which shouldn't even have been given) from yesterday.....but it WAS NOT ME!!!
I have included the screen shot from where OM the rouge ban haapy assmod based serious mod decisions on a GUESS..
fuckalms...I feel like since I have been subject to such awful and unethical treatment and suffered the indignity of being falsely accused by a mod on TC.....that the remedy to make things right is to immediately restore my posting priveliges..
I apologize for my long post and typing errors..posting on a phone is tedious at best for me..
I hope you will assist me on this asap....thank you..
http://www.scatchan.net/topic/40273 ·On !Uvm54ORbmo (OP) — 11.4 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #449,095
@previous (Syntax )
looks like typical Bert to me
yeah so what if I had rage at and threaten fuckalms before when she banned me I am all that is man I just have to say it out and she will rush to my rescue immediately
No idea what PM he was talking about tho, I didn't send anything to him
·Syntax — 11.4 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #449,098
@previous (On !Uvm54ORbmo)
> No idea what PM he was talking about tho, I didn't send anything to him
4 Sure I didn't LoL
OK got your reply about being able to hit the Top Tone in Cantonese with a cold
Wot about when Chinese get horse throat?
·On !Uvm54ORbmo (OP) — 11.4 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #449,099
@previous (Syntax )
hmm not sure about this, but if one's voice changed it'd applied to all high-mid-low tones, like high goes low and low goes lower
I cant tell for sure for I havent heard of any examples so far
+Anonymous D — 11.4 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #449,100
so...now stating one's opinion is a violation of TC's policy?
I was contemplating my return to the board after reading that the ban had been rescinded....and I thought about why the ban had been given....and then it occurred to me that something is wrong here..
how is it logical for no ban to be given for things like telling people to kill their selves...why is there no ban for overtly racist comments and insinuations... why is there no ban for lewd comments about one's deceased family...why is there no ban for making posts disclosing people's home address es...why is there no ban for someone posting the same shtick twenty times a day every day of the week like the Doc does.....AND YET.....a person can be banned for using a phrase or word that would be perfectly acceptable in every day society even in a church or preschool classroom?
I am not whining about my ban...yet upon further consideraton I do have to say I believe it is utterly ridiculous and completely absurd for it to be a bannable offense to post a phrase which if said to a thousand people outside TC...not one person would be offended by it..
·Syntax — 11.4 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #449,101
@449,099 (On !Uvm54ORbmo)
Perhaps Chinese just give up trying to speak when voice goes full on horse.
I just billed two clients for days-nites work and as soon as I get the auto email reply from the one that pays on delivery I am closing up my Nike factor and going to figure out which bottle to open and pour cause with most of my work I really do not drink OTHER then a glass of wine or beer with dinner. 2nite it was my infamous Green Chile Pork Stew so it was beer.
C ya all 2morrow
·On !Uvm54ORbmo (OP) — 11.4 years ago, 50 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #449,102
@449,100 (D)
> how is it logical for no ban to be given for things like telling people to kill their selves...why is there no ban for overtly racist comments and insinuations... why is there no ban for lewd comments about one's deceased family...why is there no ban for making posts disclosing people's home address es...why is there no ban for someone posting the same shtick twenty times a day every day of the week like the Doc does.....AND YET.....a person can be banned for using a phrase or word that would be perfectly acceptable in every day society even in a church or preschool classroom?
Because all you stated is not violating the rules but USING FATTFUCKER SHTICK IS, which is exactly what you did. /explanation
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
·On !Uvm54ORbmo (OP) — 11.4 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #449,104
@449,100 (D)
> so...now stating one's opinion is a violation of TC's policy?
No it isn't so stop bitching about me STATING MY OWN OPINION
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
·Anonymous D — 11.4 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #449,106
turning personal opinion into oppressive laws...to the detriment of the general populace.....I'll take 'What are communists well known for' for a thousand, Alex.
·On !Uvm54ORbmo (OP) — 11.4 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #449,107
@previous (D)
Dodging the point, bring up more excuses,
I'll take "What are drunken big-talk sissies well known for" for a thousand, Syntax.
·Anonymous D — 11.4 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #449,108
@previous (On !Uvm54ORbmo)
just be clear....although I think your rule about 'stuff Matt says' is crazy..I do appreciate you dropping the ban..
good night..
·On !Uvm54ORbmo (OP) — 11.4 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #449,109
@previous (D)
it's not "my" rule, it is agreed among all mods and frank, just saying
no prob, just don't fuck it up again
later
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.