Zylka's avatar - Page 4

Urban Ranger · June 2, 2003, 09:53

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
No one ever does any harm until someone overly sensitive raises the alarm.

Pray tell, is actively preaching racism and hatred "not doing any harm?"

FrustratedPoet · June 2, 2003, 10:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
actively preaching

It's neither active nor preaching. The bare minimum of action is required to set your avatar and then you just leave it there and post as normal. It's passive.

Also, the simple appearence of a picture next to someone's name can hardly be considered preaching. Am I suggesting that everyone should talk with a poor english accent and attempt to murder their mothers like Stewie from Family Guy?
Is Dr. Spike's Warcraft-Orc avatar encouraging everybody to burn down villages and worship demons?
Is Ming's Ming-the-Merciless avatar extolling the virtues of brutal and tyrannical inter-galactic despotism and universal conquest? (actually ... maybe it is)

Now, somebody actually posting text that matched Nazi doctrine would be active preaching, and they would certainly be banned for it. The whole avatar thing is a load of fuss about nothing, to be honest. I don't credit those disgusting evil people (I mean Nazis, not Zylka and Uber

) with enough to pay any attention to what they say. No sane person is going to have their socio-political opinions changed by an avatar on an internet forum. The actual words that are posted, maybe, but the picture is irrelevant.

Of course, Dan and Mark can make their own rules.

mrmitchell · June 2, 2003, 10:14

Thanks, FP--perhaps I didn't word it right for UR

Nubclear · June 2, 2003, 16:00

I must say, Zylkas troll is QUITE impressive. And so is ubers.

Cause its causing such a stir, and sooo many people (Such as JohnT and Panag) are falling into it

Zylka

Uber

Ming · June 2, 2003, 16:10

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
Of course, Dan and Mark can make their own rules.

That's right...

Inverse Icarus · June 2, 2003, 17:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
I must say, Zylkas troll is QUITE impressive. And so is ubers.

Cause its causing such a stir, and sooo many people (Such as JohnT and Panag) are falling into it

Zylka

Uber

danke, danke :bow:

although i'd like to go on record that i honestly dislike the whole thing in it's entirety, especially because i was informed a while back that not only swastikas but any "white power" symbols were disallowed. i had used several things, the swastika, the ss logo, the ss skull, all were disallowed, and i can see their justification (although i dont agree with it).

but white power and the movement to keep the race pure should not be bannable, and some of their symbols probably wouldn't be allowed around here. maybe i should make some

Urban Ranger · June 2, 2003, 22:38

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
It's neither active nor preaching. The bare minimum of action is required to set your avatar and then you just leave it there and post as normal. It's passive.

Nazis and neo-Nazis actively preach(ed) hatred and racism. Using the Nazi swastika as an avatar shows that the poster agrees with such a position.

Therefore, holding using the Nazi swastika is harmless means that person finds nothing objectionable with the position of agreeing with the neo-Nazis.

mrmitchell · June 2, 2003, 23:12

...so the History Channel is staffed by several hundred neo-Nazis? Nice theory you got there.

Nubclear · June 2, 2003, 23:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Nazis and neo-Nazis actively preach(ed) hatred and racism. Using the Nazi swastika as an avatar shows that the poster agrees with such a position.

Hate to say it, but could they be TROLLING?

On Apolyton! Never!

They could also be using it for RELIGIOUS purposes or wanting ethnic purity (NON VIOLENT).

Look before you leap.....

notyoueither · June 3, 2003, 01:34

And blatant trolling isn't allowed either.

I agree with Locutus and UR. There is no need to use that symbol, anywhere. There is a reason it is outlawed in some liberal democracies.

As Ming says, it's a private site. The owners choose not to allow the symbol to be used. I applaud them.

And no, there is nothing else one could ban which is equivalent to banning it. Nothing even comes close.

Adagio · June 3, 2003, 05:46

Let's get back to topic:

Zylka's avatar

Am I the only one, who had noticed that "thing" at the bottom of his avatar... it sure looks suspicious...

Adagio · June 3, 2003, 05:48

...and if you don't know what I'm talking about, please read this thread!

...Zylka's 4th post in this thread, to be exact...

DrSpike · June 3, 2003, 05:54

I did not notice...............it's well hidden.

Jamski · June 3, 2003, 05:56

I just thought it was some kind of ribbon.....

Well, 99.9% of us have seen one before *shrugs*

-Jam

Adagio · June 3, 2003, 05:58

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike

I did not notice...............it's well hidden.

...I didn't notice it myself either, if it wasn't because his post in that other thread

mrmitchell · June 3, 2003, 09:43

Zylka just can't keep his ass out of trouble can he?
---
As per the neo-Nazis and the swastika banning etc., I'm not a neo-Nazi but I'm saying that just using the swastika there's nothing wrong with that, especially considering that he could be Buddhist. (Well, Zylka couldn't

, but maybe someone else

). You have to start telling people, "Nazism is good" or something--thoughts don't ever do anything; the first spark is in the action.

(Please excuse me if the last one kinda came out garbled; I haven't had my coffee yet

)

EDIT: But, it is, a private site, so Ming and Co. could do whutever they wanted to anyways.

DrSpike · June 3, 2003, 09:48

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
EDIT: But, it is, a private site, so Ming and Co. could do whutever they wanted to anyways.

Ming will post shortly to point out that he is a moderator, not an owner.

mrmitchell · June 3, 2003, 09:50

Yeah, I know...

in the other thread, as of 8:45, Zylka's avatar mysteriously disappeared

(I think)

EDIT: And now I get an "Invalid Thread Specified" on that one. Ming, quit trying to cover up the truth!

(I got the last post!

)

Ming · June 3, 2003, 09:51

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Ming will post shortly to point out that he is a moderator, not an owner.

Thanks for taking care of that for me

Adagio · June 3, 2003, 10:17

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
EDIT: And now I get an "Invalid Thread Specified" on that one. Ming, quit trying to cover up the truth!

(I got the last post!

)

... I wonder why...

Ming · June 3, 2003, 10:38

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Yeah, I know...

in the other thread, as of 8:45, Zylka's avatar mysteriously disappeared

(I think)

EDIT: And now I get an "Invalid Thread Specified" on that one. Ming, quit trying to cover up the truth!

(I got the last post!

)

Cover up... Nahhh... If I wanted to do that... I would be deleting all references in this thread as well

Just cleaning up after Zylka... His avatar has been removed, and he has been warned

DinoDoc · June 3, 2003, 12:32

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
And no, there is nothing else one could ban which is equivalent to banning it. Nothing even comes close.

I've yet to see a coherent explination for that.

Sava · June 3, 2003, 12:40

While this is Mark and Dan's site, and mods having the power over such an issue; IMO, Zylka should be allowed to have whatever avatar he likes. I'm a free-speech supporter in the truest, American sense. People have the freedom to be dumbasses.

mrmitchell · June 3, 2003, 12:54

Quote:

Just cleaning up after Zylka... His avatar has been removed, and he has been warned

...for the 300th time.

Quote:

People have the freedom to be dumbasses.

atawa · June 3, 2003, 14:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
While this is Mark and Dan's site, and mods having the power over such an issue; IMO, Zylka should be allowed to have whatever avatar he likes. I'm a free-speech supporter in the truest, American sense. People have the freedom to be dumbasses.

I wonder what you would say when he photoshopped a picture of your mother so she's giving head to Bin Laden and used that as avatar

mrmitchell · June 3, 2003, 15:21

That's different; that's libel.

Also, I think Zylka merely being able to obtain access to a picture of his mom would break some kind of law too wouldn't it?

Dis · June 3, 2003, 16:52

I missed his nazy avatar, can someone post a picture of it? The only one I seen yesterday was an avatar with a penis in it That was the first thing I noticed about it. What does that say about me?

Are we allowed to have confederate battle flags as avatars?

Zylka · June 3, 2003, 17:44

Well, ADG... I must thank you for publicly pointing out and therefore DESTROYING probably the most brilliant avatar in the history of this fair site! I mean, am I some kind of f*cking creative genius in making and sharing these things with my fellow polites, or what? Are you some kind of f*cking moron in pointing it out to the mods, devoid of a sense of subtlety; perchance humor???

I am right pissed off at the fun some of you glue sniffing, herring munching, chop stick wielding bastards drain out of this site. Consider this my resignation

Zylka · June 3, 2003, 17:45

OH I DIDN'T REALLY MEAN THAT LAST PART, OH PLEASE TAKE ME BACK - I AM SO LONELY!!!

JohnT · June 3, 2003, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
That's different; that's libel.

Yeah, but do you really think OBL has the cajones to come to the US to file a lawsuit?