I really can't believe you all bought it!

[Lestat]

The little bitch could just as easily have cropped one bit of information from such a PM (the username) and posted an otherwise intact screencap.  She seemed to take having the focus of the limelight moved away from her being center-stage pretty badly. But an attack? was it fuck.

As for max the limp wristed ursine AIDs-monger, there is one answer to that little fag. And it involves being stuck on a broomhandle, hammered into the ground, throat first, whilst a 'beer bong' arrangement of funnel and drainpipe is put in the other end and cheapo drain cleaner grade concentrated sulfuric acid poured down the funnel, followed by a half liter or so of super-glue.

Suppose he could be taken off the broomhandle after that, see how far he manages to crawl. That dirty, Hep-C-spreading gutter full of sewage has a lot to answer for. I'm just glad he isn't likely to breed

[odeon]

As a vet of several defunct fora, I'm in a position to make the following observation:

One very effective  way to destroy a forum is to goad the biggest mouth on the forum into making a bunch of wild accusations against Admin.  Then campaign for same to be banned. Once he's  banned, you start shooting down all his sympathisers.  A good way to do this is to circulate a bunch of nasty rumours about them, with emphasis on "dishonesty"  , so that any inconvenient truth that leaks out can be easily dismissed as  a lie.  Whilst circulating said rumours you offer a very pausible reason as to why  your identity should not be made public, of course. 

 Eventually you get a good half of the forum either at each other's throats or paranoid as fuck. Or both, ofc.  Eventually Admin succumbs to the toxic atmosphere and pulls the plug.  If you're really clever about it, the whole fiasco gets blamed on Motormouth, and you come out smelling of roses. 

I thought that kind of thing was unlikely to work on I2, but I'm seriously beginning to wonder. On the surface of it, this surely looks like a variation on that theme.  And even if nobody's pulling our strings after all (that's pure speculation on my part)  it surely is a toxic atmosphere, and cries of "Liar!" are not helping in the least.

You seem convinced that strings are being pulled. I don't think that's the case and I've been around for some time, too.

Al's said that he'll contain his bs to this thread which should be enough to contain the toxicity, too. We'll see. As you might have guessed, I don't trust him.

Just to make myself clear:  there's a big difference , in my vocabulary, between "beginning to suspect", and "It's a fact".  Also, in my vocabulary, "that's pure speculation on my part" is more than a meaningless blast of hot air.

On other fora , I've been in the unusual position of  knowing exactly what was going on, exactly who was resposible, and was able to gather a bunch of hard evidence. I've even been personally targetted by one or two of those subterranean smear campaigns, on account of my knowing too much.  If the same were true here, I'd be a lot more explicit . I wouldn't limit myself to pointing out worrying patterns, I would bloody well pounce.

It's not just a question of being " around for a long time" .  How many fora have fallen to pieces around you, Odeon? And how much did you learn about the subterranean goings-on? I learned a lot more than your average Admin would ever learn -  largely  because people tend to share their personal problems with me, and these things do get very , very personal.  And I ask people  questions like "WTF happened to your self-confidence?" and the answer occasionally  turns out to be a ruthless bullying campaign, that nobody knew about, nor even suspected , because it all happened behind the scenes. (and yes, I've seen the actual damning  PMs)

Meantime, the people running to Admin and making complaints and accusations were not the people who were being damaged; quite the opposite, most often.

So, I think I most likely know a lot more than you about that sort of thing. But I'm open to being surprised.

I didn't know this was a competition. I'm not sure what is to be gained by one but certain that I don't plan to participate. You think what you think and I think what I think. Deal?

[Lestat]

I see no atttempt on walkie's part to make some sort of emotionally-ruled competitive event take place. She has nothing to gain from doing so as far as I can see.

[Al Swearegen]

I see no atttempt on walkie's part to make some sort of emotionally-ruled competitive event take place. She has nothing to gain from doing so as far as I can see.

Nor I.

Odeon made some big claims that smeared me and stated them as dact based statements and when I argued the polar opposite, he said that "I" was being dishonest and engaging in history revisionism.

So I backed everything I said with other people's words including 2 of the 3 Admins.

Now it is on him to show he is not lies and hot air and back his big claims.

I can, he can't.  Who is credible?

[Lestat]

A principle fundamental to science, and to scientists, is that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', and yes, if it is a third party making the claims against somebody, the onus is upon them to prove those claims true, not for the party the claims are made against to prove otherwise, so as to disallow a 'win by default', which in logic, is not a valid outcome.

For example, if you were to accuse me of being a paedophile (and I'm not for a minute suggesting you have or are), it would rest upon YOU to prove that *I* had abused the child, not my responsibility to prove that I did not. You would be the one who must present the evidence, and not I the one who had to refute all hypothetical possible sources of that which could potentially be seen as evidence by SOME party, by however slim a margin. The latter equates to a herculean task, and one both impossible and impractical, for it is not possible to prove a negative. One can of course prove a person IS something or DID something, but proving that same person ISN'T  that thing, or that they did NOT do a thing is quite different and logically impossible. And what is more, demanding the accused prove their innocence rather than demanding the accuser prove the guilt of the accused is neither fair nor reasonable. That gives way too much (false and undeserved) of a shadowy, nasty sort of pseudo-credibility to accusers at the expense of the party facing the accusation.

[Gopher Gary]

I really can't believe you all bought it!

How much am I paying for all this crap anyway? 

[Walkie]

well, guys. i was implying that odeon might have a been a tad hasty and over-credulous, even that he might have been played by somebody.  I don't seriously expect him to say "Oops, yeah. That's a thought" . I think i got off pretty lightly, there.
As for the accusation that you vbrought down AFF, Al , looks like nobody else takes it seriously, doesn't it? I  do believe it's been pretty well laughed out of court by now, regardless of whether Odeon admits that  or not. Might be wrong, but  I think we can safely move on.
I mean, hey! the guy got egg on his face, here.  What do we expect him to do about that? Take a selfie, and post it on the front page? Nah, might be fun, but not gonna happen.

 

[Al Swearegen]

well, guys. i was implying that odeon might have a been a tad hasty and over-credulous, even that he might have been played by somebody.  I don't seriously expect him to say "Oops, yeah. That's a thought" . I think i got off pretty lightly, there.
As for the accusation that you vbrought down AFF, Al , looks like nobody else takes it seriously, doesn't it? I  do believe it's been pretty well laughed out of court by now, regardless of whether Odeon admits that  or not. Might be wrong, but  I think we can safely move on.
I mean, hey! the guy got egg on his face, here.  What do we expect him to do about that? Take a selfie, and post it on the front page? Nah, might be fun, but not gonna happen.

I'd settle for him admitting he was a lying asshat that can't back himself....but yes you are right here.

[Gopher Gary]

I'd settle for fifty bucks, but I'm easy like that. 

[odeon]

I see no atttempt on walkie's part to make some sort of emotionally-ruled competitive event take place. She has nothing to gain from doing so as far as I can see.

Nor I.

Odeon made some big claims that smeared me and stated them as dact based statements and when I argued the polar opposite, he said that "I" was being dishonest and engaging in history revisionism.

So I backed everything I said with other people's words including 2 of the 3 Admins.

Now it is on him to show he is not lies and hot air and back his big claims.

I can, he can't.  Who is credible?

Arguing with you is utterly pointless. Also, quoting people who weren't behind the decision to close down AFF amounts to a lot of hot air, nothing more. I have heard opposing opinions that I find credible, especially in light of your behaviour here, and so the difference between me and you now is that I don't quote my sources. Why should I? I already know what you are and won't allow what happened at AFF to happen here.

[odeon]

A principle fundamental to science, and to scientists, is that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', and yes, if it is a third party making the claims against somebody, the onus is upon them to prove those claims true, not for the party the claims are made against to prove otherwise, so as to disallow a 'win by default', which in logic, is not a valid outcome.

For example, if you were to accuse me of being a paedophile (and I'm not for a minute suggesting you have or are), it would rest upon YOU to prove that *I* had abused the child, not my responsibility to prove that I did not. You would be the one who must present the evidence, and not I the one who had to refute all hypothetical possible sources of that which could potentially be seen as evidence by SOME party, by however slim a margin. The latter equates to a herculean task, and one both impossible and impractical, for it is not possible to prove a negative. One can of course prove a person IS something or DID something, but proving that same person ISN'T  that thing, or that they did NOT do a thing is quite different and logically impossible. And what is more, demanding the accused prove their innocence rather than demanding the accuser prove the guilt of the accused is neither fair nor reasonable. That gives way too much (false and undeserved) of a shadowy, nasty sort of pseudo-credibility to accusers at the expense of the party facing the accusation.

This is not science, though, it's simply stopping a bully.

[odeon]

well, guys. i was implying that odeon might have a been a tad hasty and over-credulous, even that he might have been played by somebody.  I don't seriously expect him to say "Oops, yeah. That's a thought" . I think i got off pretty lightly, there.
As for the accusation that you vbrought down AFF, Al , looks like nobody else takes it seriously, doesn't it? I  do believe it's been pretty well laughed out of court by now, regardless of whether Odeon admits that  or not. Might be wrong, but  I think we can safely move on.
I mean, hey! the guy got egg on his face, here.  What do we expect him to do about that? Take a selfie, and post it on the front page? Nah, might be fun, but not gonna happen.

It was quite clear what you were implying, Walkie, but claiming that nobody is taking what I said seriously is just not true. If you think you can read people's minds, then read mine.

Oh, and by posting the last few messages, you just lost what little respect I had for you and your opinions.

[Al Swearegen]

I see no atttempt on walkie's part to make some sort of emotionally-ruled competitive event take place. She has nothing to gain from doing so as far as I can see.

Nor I.

Odeon made some big claims that smeared me and stated them as dact based statements and when I argued the polar opposite, he said that "I" was being dishonest and engaging in history revisionism.

So I backed everything I said with other people's words including 2 of the 3 Admins.

Now it is on him to show he is not lies and hot air and back his big claims.

I can, he can't.  Who is credible?

Arguing with you is utterly pointless. Also, quoting people who weren't behind the decision to close down AFF amounts to a lot of hot air, nothing more. I have heard opposing opinions that I find credible, especially in light of your behaviour here, and so the difference between me and you now is that I don't quote my sources. Why should I? I already know what you are and won't allow what happened at AFF to happen here.

In other words, you can't back yourself and are a propagandist with no credibility. Don't worry.  I got it.

Look, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter that much. But for the record, the person I quoted the most was Gareth Even without his many quotes:
*  I put far more on the table to back myself than you could
* AND all sourced from this website
* AND by people from that forum
* AND from that time compared to..."I heard from a source..."

Blow it out your arse, you impotent, little slug

[Al Swearegen]

well, guys. i was implying that odeon might have a been a tad hasty and over-credulous, even that he might have been played by somebody.  I don't seriously expect him to say "Oops, yeah. That's a thought" . I think i got off pretty lightly, there.
As for the accusation that you vbrought down AFF, Al , looks like nobody else takes it seriously, doesn't it? I  do believe it's been pretty well laughed out of court by now, regardless of whether Odeon admits that  or not. Might be wrong, but  I think we can safely move on.
I mean, hey! the guy got egg on his face, here.  What do we expect him to do about that? Take a selfie, and post it on the front page? Nah, might be fun, but not gonna happen.

It was quite clear what you were implying, Walkie, but claiming that nobody is taking what I said seriously is just not true. If you think you can read people's minds, then read mine.

Oh, and by posting the last few messages, you just lost what little respect I had for you and your opinions.

Well, I think of I was in your position I would be weeping into my keyboard just like you are right now.

Out of interest what is the value the currency that is your credibility and favour these days? I understand it has really bottomed out?

Mine has too, let's be real. Your threats to treat someone like the great unwashed works so much better if you are not sitting in the muck yourself.

Made me laugh,  if that is a consolation....possibly isn't

[Al Swearegen]

A principle fundamental to science, and to scientists, is that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', and yes, if it is a third party making the claims against somebody, the onus is upon them to prove those claims true, not for the party the claims are made against to prove otherwise, so as to disallow a 'win by default', which in logic, is not a valid outcome.

For example, if you were to accuse me of being a paedophile (and I'm not for a minute suggesting you have or are), it would rest upon YOU to prove that *I* had abused the child, not my responsibility to prove that I did not. You would be the one who must present the evidence, and not I the one who had to refute all hypothetical possible sources of that which could potentially be seen as evidence by SOME party, by however slim a margin. The latter equates to a herculean task, and one both impossible and impractical, for it is not possible to prove a negative. One can of course prove a person IS something or DID something, but proving that same person ISN'T  that thing, or that they did NOT do a thing is quite different and logically impossible. And what is more, demanding the accused prove their innocence rather than demanding the accuser prove the guilt of the accused is neither fair nor reasonable. That gives way too much (false and undeserved) of a shadowy, nasty sort of pseudo-credibility to accusers at the expense of the party facing the accusation.

This is not science, though, it's simply stopping a bully.

You could always re-imagine disagreements as virtuous moral crusades, whereby you are a defender of virtue. I think that would be exceedingly healthy