Complaint About Saddam

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


no-one should be banned solely for their posts stupid and ignorant nature. Hence my orignal post.

I agree completely.

[Wiglaf]

Congrats, infatuation. You've managed to dodge every question relating to your arguement. You made the claim that someone deserved to be banned due to injustice, yet cannot present any evidence of it. Great...

[Lefty Scaevola]

Infatuation is busy over the the OT deriding women posters and whining about the attention and chivalrous treatment that they (and not he) receive.

[Dauphin]

You are the biggest ****in **** talker I have ever met on any forum

Saying somthing at first, then re-defining it as something else. Please get your prioritys straight man.





I stand by what I said. The original post is supposed to convey the message that ignorance is more damning on a person than banning is, hence "ignorance is more damning than any banning can inflict"

So how have I "redefined" that statement?

[Dauphin]

Some people think ignorance is bliss though.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Some people think ignorance is bliss though.

What fools. At best, ignorance is temporary avoidance of mental anguish then paid for by a greater harm when the problem is later discovered.

[Wiglaf]

So how have I "redefined" that statement?

Most people who read your post would think you meant saddam was being ignorant in saying Diana was unimportant. I'm still not sure if that's what you personally think, but it seems like a very questionable.. clarification.

I think we should just give up on infatuation. He's cutting off links to this thread he posted, and ignoring direct questions. It's safe to say he no longer cares, now that it's clear saddam won't be banned.

[Dauphin]

Ok, I can just about see that interpretation.

However, as I did not explicitly say that, or intend to impy it (it was meant to be a statement taken at face value) I can only conclude that some people read to deeply into a one line post.

[faded glory]

Oh yes, I studied that line very well

And you absolutely sided with Infat in suggesting that I should get worse than banned (somthing worse).


You 'Redefined' bye saying that what you meant to say was "Somthing worse, just not Banning"


Which is BS, because thats the only thing these guys at apolyton could do to me. Atleast I hope that is the only thing

[Wiglaf]

(it was meant to be a statement taken at face value

<infatuation posts a thread complaining about saddam's diana comment, requests ban>
"I think his ignorance is more damning than any banning can inflict"

It's very unlikely you meant he was an ignorant person in general. We aren't reading deeply into anything, it looks like you've backed off from your position. Then again, wouldn't be the first time. Infatuation's left any and all of his supporters in the dust by completely ignoring any sensible questions asked to him.

You and infat wanted Saddam gone, it was rejected and laughed at, and now infat leaves and you change your story.

Seems that way to me, anyway. And if you really meant your words in their original form, sorry, they weren't cool anyway

[faded glory]

*clears throat*

Hello, erm, being a victim of foul play here. Infatuation could have easily conviced a mod to ban me. Then I would have been banned and silenced. Then I would have had no way to argue my case, because I would have been banned.

I understand that lieing is not illegal. But he clearly lied in an attempt to ban me. Which could have been a successful attempt. So I suggest banning him for trying to lie and ban me.

After all, this is like a cheap shot. A frivolous lawsuit with no basis, just an attempt to get what one wants, and then ride off into the sunset if he unsuccessful. This should be punished...He should not be allowed to simply do this. This is like 'Obstruction of Justice' and 'Purgury'.

Which makes me wonder,
How many other people has he gotten in trouble like this

Anyway hopefully you all will act on this.....

[DaShi]

Yes, he must be banned. Come mindless followers let's march on Britain until we root out the instigator.

[TCO]

Beating on Stew is a popular sport. But it gets old after a while...

[DaShi]

You'd have to ask him.

Wait. This isn't ACOL.

[Wiglaf]

What? He posted a screwover thread in the most cowardly fashion imaginable. How do you figure we're picking on him?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Saddam
Oh yes, I studied that line very well

WHOOSH!

Yeah, and you still don't have even the slightest clue what's actually being said to you...

And you absolutely sided with Infat in suggesting that I should get worse than banned (somthing worse).

He's saying that no matter how badly punished you could be on this forum - it could not be a worse punishment than the ignorance that you are and will be saddled with, for the rest of your life...

Big Brunch was entirely consistent in stating that 'no-one should be banned solely for their posts stupid and ignorant nature'.

After all that would be discriminatory against stupid and ignorant people!

It is my solemn view as a liberal thinker that stupid and ignorant people should be tolerated and 'nurtured' in the (often all too vain) hope that they might become less stupid and ignorant...

But in your case, I'm not a betting man.

Which is BS, because thats the only thing these guys at apolyton could do to me. Atleast I hope that is the only thing

Not quite - it is quite safe to say that you are your own worst enemy...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Saddam
*clears throat*

Hello, erm, being a victim of foul play here. Infatuation could have easily conviced a mod to ban me.

Hardly. Once someone complains, all I look at is the posts in question - I don't care about anyone's spin, I care about what is actually posted. Ming is pretty much the same way, MLeonard hardly ever bans anyone, and Mark's BS-o-meter is also generally in good working order.

Then I would have been banned and silenced. Then I would have had no way to argue my case, because I would have been banned.

PMs still work when you are banned. So does AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, email, etc.

After all, this is like a cheap shot.

Welcome to the internet. It happens.

A frivolous lawsuit with no basis, just an attempt to get what one wants, and then ride off into the sunset if he unsuccessful.

Did you spend >$50,000 in legal fees defending against this?

Which makes me wonder,
How many other people has he gotten in trouble like this

Precisely none.

[Ming]

Ditto what MtG said

[MichaeltheGreat]

BTW, let him go, MOBIUS (and others).

Saddam catches his share of **** here. The complaint has been reviewed, end of story. This is not going to be either a Saddam bashing thread, or an Infatuation bashing thread.

[Solver]

Saddam, you'll get everyobdy here sick .

[Provost Harrison]

It may have been a flippant remark, but certainly isn't something that hasn't been thought. In fact, it is quite a common sentiment. Although I rarely agree with the man himself. His perogative if he wants to hold some loony politics, but should expect to be challenged on them from time to time. I don't think whinging to the mods about him is the right option. Hey Stew, remember the autob!tch feature, it works perfectly well

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by SMACed
It's very unlikely you meant he was an ignorant person in general. We aren't reading deeply into anything, it looks like you've backed off from your position.

But I do believe that he is ignorant in general and have stated this before, but I don't care if he dislikes my opinion, and I am sure the feeling is mutual. I haven't backed off from any opinion. I stand by what I said. Just because you choose to ascribe other things to my statement is your problem.

Then again, wouldn't be the first time.

No it wouldn't be, indeed there hasn't been a first time. Or perhaps you can find something to back up that statement. Stupid me, you can't.

in suggesting that I should get worse than banned (somthing worse).

Read what I said, I said that ignorance is worse than banning.


Head meet wall, wall meet head. *Thump**Thump**Thump*

(To clarify that would be my head, I don't want anyone misinterpreting now. .)

[Wiglaf]

No it wouldn't be, indeed there hasn't been a first time. Or perhaps you can find something to back up that statement. Stupid me, you can't.

Eh? My point is infatuation backed off, so you backing off wouldn't be the first time. I presented that in the original post, but for whatever reason you omitted it in your quote..

Just because you choose to ascribe other things to my statement is your problem.

You're ignorant.
(I meant that in general - what I just said has NO relation to your recent statement)

[Wiglaf]

his should be punished...He should not be allowed to simply do this. This is like 'Obstruction of Justice' and 'Purgury'.

Saddam -- Sure, he acted pretty childish, and lied a bit, but banning him? We'd have lots of people disappearing around here if that's the prereq

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by SMACed
Eh? My point is infatuation backed off, so you backing off wouldn't be the first time. I presented that in the original post, but for whatever reason you omitted it in your quote..

Right. I misunderstood, but reading it looked like you were accusing me of falling away from my views.

So if you make a clarification it means that I misundestood it. If I make a clarification then you obviously must know what I'm thinking, and I am just changing my story.

It smells of double standard.

[faded glory]

I dont care, its a dead issue now. Infat has shown his true colors and decided not to even argue his point of view.

What a damn coward

He has totally ignored this thread since it went against him

end of discussion.


Mobius- Another oppurtunistic post?Just to stab enemys in there back and thrash them ruthlessly while there defending from the front?

Typical ,

I wont respond, this is neither the time nor the thread to pick a fight with a nitwit like yourself...

[Wiglaf]

Right. I misunderstood, but reading it looked like you were accusing me of falling away from my views.

So if you make a clarification it means that I misundestood it. If I make a clarification then you obviously must know what I'm thinking, and I am just changing my story.

It smells of double standard.

What?????

You posted one line. I read that and responded to it.
I posted more than one line. You cut it into one piece (the statement), and forgot completely about the next line (the supporting information) -- and in your post you asked for the supporting information...

Are you trying to put on a show or something?

Nice try, I guess.


edit/

My post: Then again, wouldn't be the first time. Infatuation's left any and all of his supporters in the dust by completely ignoring any sensible questions asked to him.

Your answer:
"No it wouldn't be, indeed there hasn't been a first time. Or perhaps you can find something to back up that statement. Stupid me, you can't. "

You only answered to: "Then again, wouldn't be the first time"

This thread's getting ridiculous.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by SMACed

This thread's getting ridiculous.

This thread has been ridiculous from its inception.

Bad thread!! Bad thread!!!! Me smart poster. Me no (more) post here. Bad thread die of starvation and fall off page!

[faded glory]

Hey C'mon Infatuation, show yourself you yellow belly......
*censored*

[Provost Harrison]

Don't take it seriously, he is just trolling you...