INTENSITY²

Start here => Free For ALL => Topic started by: Scrapheap on November 28, 2011, 12:01:44 PM

Title: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on November 28, 2011, 12:01:44 PM
What happened to it??  >:(

I tried to log on and the site has been erased.  ???
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on November 28, 2011, 12:07:23 PM
What happened to it??  >:(

I tried to log on and the site has been erased.  ???

 :laugh:

Well time for Plan B.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on November 28, 2011, 12:10:14 PM
Do you know what happened to it??

Where's Schleed when you actually want him around?? :tantrum:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on November 28, 2011, 12:26:14 PM
Do you know what happened to it??

Where's Schleed when you actually want him around?? :tantrum:

He's at college still probably
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on November 28, 2011, 12:27:56 PM
Do you know what happened to it??

Where's Schleed when you actually want him around?? :tantrum:

He's at college still probably

Isn't it almost 8:00 PM there right now??
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 28, 2011, 12:32:53 PM
I've upgraded to paid hosting, so the forum had to be wiped. A backup is fucking 30 euro, so fuck that.

I'll set everything back up and pester you all to join. Again.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on November 28, 2011, 12:34:13 PM
Do you know what happened to it??

Where's Schleed when you actually want him around?? :tantrum:

He's at college still probably

Isn't it almost 8:00 PM there right now??

No 6:33  :laugh:

I've upgraded to paid hosting, so the forum had to be wiped. A backup is fucking 30 euro, so fuck that.

I'll set everything back up and pester you all to join. Again.

 Ah ok.  :thumbup:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on November 28, 2011, 01:33:40 PM
Do you know what happened to it??

Where's Schleed when you actually want him around?? :tantrum:

He's at college still probably

Isn't it almost 8:00 PM there right now??

No 6:33  :laugh:


Oh, OK. I was only an hour off. I thought you were 9 hours ahead, when you're 8 hours ahead.

Every time I've been to Europe, is was 9 hours ahead of US Pacific time.  :dunno:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 28, 2011, 01:39:10 PM
I decided to let them transfer from the old forum, a bit of money but messing with cpanel will take some getting used to. :dunno:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 28, 2011, 02:27:33 PM
Do you know what happened to it??

Where's Schleed when you actually want him around?? :tantrum:

He's at college still probably

Isn't it almost 8:00 PM there right now??

No 6:33  :laugh:


Oh, OK. I was only an hour off. I thought you were 9 hours ahead, when you're 8 hours ahead.

Every time I've been to Europe, is was 9 hours ahead of US Pacific time.  :dunno:

Daylight saving. Our clocks go one hour forward for 6 months of the year.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on November 28, 2011, 03:06:45 PM
I decided to let them transfer from the old forum, a bit of money but messing with cpanel will take some getting used to. :dunno:

So what are your plans for Spasticity 2.0??

So far it just seems like here, except marketed towards younger members.

Will there be a significant difference between the two sites??
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 28, 2011, 03:11:33 PM
Being like this place, but without the misplaced moral outrage would be a good thing.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on November 28, 2011, 03:25:17 PM
 :santa:

the oldies can get it wrong sometimes, flutterbies.  there is a misguided belief of superiority due to age. also horses tend to get taller as you get old,  they get so tall until 'you can't get off your high horse' :hahaha:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on November 28, 2011, 03:27:50 PM
Being like this place, but without the misplaced moral outrage would be a good thing.

 :agreed:

There's a bit too much of that around here.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 28, 2011, 03:50:53 PM
Being like this place, but without the misplaced moral outrage would be a good thing.

 :agreed:

There's a bit too much of that around here.

Well, excuuuuuuse me.  I resemble that remark.  The only difference is that most of the time I keep my moral outrage to myself.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Phallacy on November 28, 2011, 03:53:36 PM
And lots of butthurt when someone does a little something. :orly:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 28, 2011, 03:57:26 PM
And lots of butthurt when someone does a little something. :orly:

Don't we have a lot of members who are willing to soothe some ointment on a hurt butt?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 28, 2011, 03:59:22 PM
And lots of butthurt when someone does a little something. :orly:

Exactly.

And just in case you werent sure, you are more than welcome to join.
I cant guarantee any of the others will be nice to you, but Id be happy to see you there.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on November 28, 2011, 03:59:57 PM
Yeah I think spasticity is best as a younger-orientated (young in mind I mean, I'm not gonna exclude the cool older people from that :zoinks: ) version of intensity, without the bullshit
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Phallacy on November 28, 2011, 04:05:29 PM
And lots of butthurt when someone does a little something. :orly:

Exactly.

And just in case you werent sure, you are more than welcome to join.
I cant guarantee any of the others will be nice to you, but Id be happy to see you there.

I'll join when I feel like it. ;)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Zippo on November 28, 2011, 04:44:43 PM
anyone else getting this page?


(http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/3950/screenshot20111128at242.png)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 28, 2011, 05:43:56 PM
anyone else getting this page?


(http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/521/screenshot20111128at242.png/)

I can't see the pic you've posted, but the site is kinda working for me. I can access it OK, but the graphics dont seem to be working.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Psychophant on November 28, 2011, 05:56:28 PM
I'm taking my moral outrage and shoving it out the fucking door and working on what really matters irl.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on November 28, 2011, 05:59:31 PM
I think it is ok to be morally outraged sometimes.  I sometimes see things and i think 'nooooooo',  i rarely spout off about them though,  unless of course it is something directed at me personally.

What i really dislike is this 'teaching a lesson'  to people! :grrr:  If the whole world were to practice an eye for an eye then i think a lot of people would be bumping into each other by now. :zoinks:

When i was younger,  i think i was about twenty, i had someone try to teach me a lesson.  This was not internet drama but this was IRL hurt and pain.  I am talking broken bones.  My crime?  i was a bit too cocky.  I went from staying in every night to going out and having fun and it was all down to meeting my best friend, Clare.  I suppose you would politely say we were 'bubbly'  and impolitely say 'fucking annoying'.    Anyway,  i trod on some toes and that is why i had someone 'teach me a lesson'  and 'knock me down a peg or two'.

Did it work?   Did it fuck?   Oh it affected me alright.  Just not in the way it was intended.  I bounced back.  I didn't tread on toes anymore I FUCKING TRAMPLED ON THEM.   I had a 'bad girl' reputation to live up to.   

It was not good really.  It took me years to lose the chip on my shoulder.  I was not a very nice person at all and i was selfish and thoughtless.  I also dished out revenge to this person ten fold. 

I know other things contributed to my 'bad spell' but it was this lesson thing that really changed me.  Looking back i had some 'wicked fun' but my life was shallow,  materialistic, and i hurt some people too.   It took a few years to be 'good again'. 

I have never felt bubbly since,  which is sad.

Maybe that is why i reacted to flutterbies recent lesson.  I think it sucks to label people,  especially young people.  Using words like 'viscous' and 'sociopath' ... i just don't see it! 

God i was stupid.  I am glad to say that i don't think she is as stupid as i was.   

I certainly don't see anything 'evil' at all,  and nothing to warrant being singled out the way she has.

I knew at the time there would be a few 'tut tut's'at me for not supporting  this bizzare act of retribution.  I can only say my actions are directly based on my own personal experience.   Lessons suck.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on November 28, 2011, 06:20:51 PM
I'm sorry you took offence re my lesson dig in that other thread (assuming that is what you mean).

You don't have to agree with my views, of course. I do think Butterflies was vicious and nasty in severl instances, to a degree others weren't, but that is my opinion and I have backed it up the best I can in those threads, explaining the whys and the hows, because that is what we sometimes do here. I stand by those views but it doesn't mean that I'm right, only that *I* think I am.

IIRC my comment was a direct response to something Butterflies said that I interpreted as quite nasty, and that's the context the response should be read in. I don't have the kind of malice to actually plan a lesson of that kind, and certainly not the patience. I do call people out and sometimes see the callouts as lessons of sorts, which is probably why I said what I did, but that's not why they happen. They happen because I want someone to back up their shit.

So for that lesson comment I do apologise, to you and to Butterflies and possibly others who might have reacted similarly, because that comment was a heat of the moment thing and, now that I think of it, quite dishonest of me.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on November 28, 2011, 06:26:14 PM
So for that lesson comment I do apologise, to you and to Butterflies and possibly others who might have reacted similarly, because that comment was a heat of the moment thing and, now that I think of it, quite dishonest of me.

We all say things in the heat of the moment.

I apologise for appearing like I was trying to paint you as a bad person.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on November 28, 2011, 06:45:25 PM
's OK. So maybe you should just avoid my reply to you in that other thread? :laugh:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on November 28, 2011, 06:47:58 PM
's OK. So maybe you should just avoid my reply to you in that other thread? :laugh:

I only replied to one bit , no worries.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on November 28, 2011, 06:58:43 PM
Maybe that is why i reacted to flutterbies recent lesson.  I think it sucks to label people,  especially young people.  Using words like 'viscous' and 'sociopath' ... i just don't see it! 

Okay, that makes sense to me. Everybody makes mistakes, but making mistakes doesn't make you a sociopath. It's one of those hot button words that people are going to take in an exaggerated way. I should have been more careful than to have thrown it around.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 28, 2011, 07:19:05 PM
anyone else getting this page?


(http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/3950/screenshot20111128at242.png)

Yes. That's how it is for me.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on November 28, 2011, 07:21:10 PM
That is cool.  The thing that really confuses me,  and i am new to internet drama is how real it really is.  I mean i tend to take most things online with a pinch of salt.  They are not real.  I have a plug and i can pull it out.   This particular drama was focused (at least in the beginning) on affecting people in real life.   So i have been ignoring logic (which tells me just words on a screen) and have been thinking IRL.  If i were to stumble across a man talking that way to a young girl of butterflies age,  using those words IRL i would be inclined to give him a gobful. (of abuse) even if they were both strangers to me.

That is why i was a bit narked.  I had a visual of odeon in headmaster kit, waving his cane at the blackboard and being intimidating. :zoinks:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Binty on November 28, 2011, 07:22:39 PM
Poor misunderstood Butterflies (emo)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on November 28, 2011, 07:24:30 PM
Internet drama can become very real. It's hard to distance yourself from it sometimes, especially when RL stuff is just inevitably gonna be involved, ie when you see someone or have contact with them offline, or when they bring personal stuff into it

It's a nice thought, but when people say not to take internet drama sseriously, it doesn't always happen like that. Most of the time these days I see it for what it is, but in the past I have been involved in "internet drama" that was very real
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on November 28, 2011, 08:14:13 PM
That is cool.  The thing that really confuses me,  and i am new to internet drama is how real it really is.  I mean i tend to take most things online with a pinch of salt.  They are not real.  I have a plug and i can pull it out.   This particular drama was focused (at least in the beginning) on affecting people in real life.   So i have been ignoring logic (which tells me just words on a screen) and have been thinking IRL.  If i were to stumble across a man talking that way to a young girl of butterflies age,  using those words IRL i would be inclined to give him a gobful. (of abuse) even if they were both strangers to me.

That is why i was a bit narked.  I had a visual of odeon in headmaster kit, waving his cane at the blackboard and being intimidating. :zoinks:

I don't think it's necessarily wrong for an older adult to talk like that to a young person. I used to know a guy who was told by a cop, as a young teenage boy, that he had sociopathic tendencies. There was truth to it, but he turned out to be one of those fortunate ones who don't get their genetic proclivities triggered too badly, so he grew up to be a cutthroat entrepreneur instead of a criminal mastermind. He would occasionally brag about what the cop told him, but he didn't suffer any lasting harm from it, and the older he got, the more he learned to check himself.

But in a forum context like this, I can see how my repeating it contributed to some of the blowup.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 28, 2011, 08:17:43 PM
That is cool.  The thing that really confuses me,  and i am new to internet drama is how real it really is.  I mean i tend to take most things online with a pinch of salt.  They are not real.  I have a plug and i can pull it out.   This particular drama was focused (at least in the beginning) on affecting people in real life.   So i have been ignoring logic (which tells me just words on a screen) and have been thinking IRL.  If i were to stumble across a man talking that way to a young girl of butterflies age,  using those words IRL i would be inclined to give him a gobful. (of abuse) even if they were both strangers to me.

That is why i was a bit narked.  I had a visual of odeon in headmaster kit, waving his cane at the blackboard and being intimidating. :zoinks:

I don't think it's necessarily wrong for an older adult to talk like that to a young person. I used to know a guy who was told by a cop, as a young teenage boy, that he had sociopathic tendencies. There was truth to it, but he turned out to be one of those fortunate ones who don't get their genetic proclivities triggered too badly, so he grew up to be a cutthroat entrepreneur instead of a criminal mastermind. He would occasionally brag about what the cop told him, but he didn't suffer any lasting harm from it, and the older he got, the more he learned to check himself.

But in a forum context like this, I can see how my repeating it contributed to some of the blowup.

No. It didn't contribute to anything. I do not take it as an insult. My uncle, who is like my dad, believes I have sociopathic tendencies. I agree with him to a certain extent.


Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on November 28, 2011, 08:24:28 PM
Ey, well, be careful with them.

What do you mean by like your dad? What's your dad like?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on November 28, 2011, 08:27:46 PM
I think the older i have got the more appealing a good shag  nice cup of tea is!   Seriously,  there are so many other things to do in life other than to spend it arguing.

IRL i am really laid back and easy going.  I buy lots of tea. :thumbup:

However,  get me behind a trolley in a supermarket and i am a cunt. :green:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 28, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
Ey, well, be careful with them.

What do you mean by like your dad? What's your dad like?

I meant that my uncle and aunt are the people who I see as my parents.
They have given me everything I have.

Although, my dad and uncle are brothers though, and both are clear undx'd aspies. Dad is probably sociopathic to some degree, considering how quickly he cut me and my sister out of his life for disobbeying his wishes.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on November 28, 2011, 08:31:38 PM
Oh I see.  :-\
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 28, 2011, 08:32:35 PM
I think the older i have got the more appealing a good shag  nice cup of tea is!   Seriously,  there are so many other things to do in life other than to spend it arguing.

IRL i am really laid back and easy going.  I buy lots of tea. :thumbup:

However,  get me behind a trolley in a supermarket and i am a cunt. :green:

I appear laid back IRL, but really I just want fun and excitement.

I'm OK with a trolley, but I'm prone to some serious road rage :green:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on November 28, 2011, 08:46:28 PM
yes road rage,  can be tootling along as nice as pie, sun shining, birds tweeting,  listening to some tuuuunes...then some cunt will pull out so you have to brake hard and then they proceed at 25mph all the way on a single carriageway. 

why didn't they just wait till you had gone past :zoinks:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 28, 2011, 08:49:04 PM
yes road rage,  can be tootling along as nice as pie, sun shining, birds tweeting,  listening to some tuuuunes...then some cunt will pull out so you have to brake hard and then they proceed at 25mph all the way on a single carriageway. 

why didn't they just wait till you had gone past :zoinks:

Some bugger nearly ran me off the road, so I drove down the road next to him, kicking his car, and trying to punch his window in. The old bastard wouldnt even look at me :grrr:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on November 28, 2011, 08:51:36 PM
I would have pretty bad roadrage if I drove I think

Or maybe I just get frustrated a lot in the car because I'm NOT the one who's driving
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 28, 2011, 09:03:24 PM
I would have pretty bad roadrage if I drove I think

Or maybe I just get frustrated a lot in the car because I'm NOT the one who's driving

I get so angry when I'm on my bike and someone does something that is dangerous to me. Sometimes they just pull out without even noticing me.

Sometimes I feel like buying a tractor and crushing them.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on November 28, 2011, 09:35:36 PM
I would have pretty bad roadrage if I drove I think

Or maybe I just get frustrated a lot in the car because I'm NOT the one who's driving

I get so angry when I'm on my bike and someone does something that is dangerous to me. Sometimes they just pull out without even noticing me.

Sometimes I feel like buying a tractor and crushing them.

I used to have pretty serious road rage too. My Eagle Talon bore the scars of several L.A. area freeway encounters. I traded paint with a few assholes who desperately needed it.

With age and experience though, I've mellowed out a little.  :M
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: ProfessorFarnsworth on November 29, 2011, 01:04:12 AM
anyone else getting this page?


(http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/3950/screenshot20111128at242.png)

Yep.

Let us know when it's ready Shleed and I'll re-register if needed.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 02:27:45 AM
There was a mismatch between the themes when it was transferred, mostly sorted now.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 02:28:14 AM
Now smileys aren't appearing. Sigh.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 02:35:03 AM
If anyone is good at this, let me know. I need some help. :laugh:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: ProfessorFarnsworth on November 29, 2011, 03:35:39 AM
If anyone is good at this, let me know. I need some help. :laugh:

I'm familar with Invisionfree and phpBB admin control panels but not SMF though. :dunno:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 03:38:29 AM
I need someone who's good with cpanel, upgrading forums etc.

I might PM Pika or Adam about it, they've experience on this.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on November 29, 2011, 04:02:50 AM
That is cool.  The thing that really confuses me,  and i am new to internet drama is how real it really is.  I mean i tend to take most things online with a pinch of salt.  They are not real.  I have a plug and i can pull it out.   This particular drama was focused (at least in the beginning) on affecting people in real life.   So i have been ignoring logic (which tells me just words on a screen) and have been thinking IRL.  If i were to stumble across a man talking that way to a young girl of butterflies age,  using those words IRL i would be inclined to give him a gobful. (of abuse) even if they were both strangers to me.

That is why i was a bit narked.  I had a visual of odeon in headmaster kit, waving his cane at the blackboard and being intimidating. :zoinks:

Yes, I realised that, eventually, and well, tried to learn from it.

Hell, I don't agree with Butterflies on a lot of stuff but I don't want to be like that, I don't want to be perceived as a headmaster trying to enforce points on authority. Either my arguments work or they don't.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on November 29, 2011, 04:04:49 AM
I need someone who's good with cpanel, upgrading forums etc.

I might PM Pika or Adam about it, they've experience on this.

What kind of problem do you have? Are you trying to upgrade?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on November 29, 2011, 04:58:33 AM
That is cool.  The thing that really confuses me,  and i am new to internet drama is how real it really is.  I mean i tend to take most things online with a pinch of salt.  They are not real.  I have a plug and i can pull it out.   This particular drama was focused (at least in the beginning) on affecting people in real life.   So i have been ignoring logic (which tells me just words on a screen) and have been thinking IRL.  If i were to stumble across a man talking that way to a young girl of butterflies age,  using those words IRL i would be inclined to give him a gobful. (of abuse) even if they were both strangers to me.

That is why i was a bit narked.  I had a visual of odeon in headmaster kit, waving his cane at the blackboard and being intimidating. :zoinks:

Yes, I realised that, eventually, and well, tried to learn from it.

Hell, I don't agree with Butterflies on a lot of stuff but I don't want to be like that, I don't want to be perceived as a headmaster trying to enforce points on authority. Either my arguments work or they don't.
Dammit!  No, it is all in my head,  that headmaster thing. Probably due to the teaching her a lesson thing.   I doubt anyone else thought the same.  I was just explaining where i was coming from.   I think all that 'headmaster' stuff belongs in the bedroom anyway :hahaha:

Not saying don't criticize her,  or point things out to her.  She has done bad stuff. We can agree to disagree about if it is worse than others on here. I just think she has 'faced the wrath' now,  and i don't think it's a good idea to paint her with the 'nasty' brush,  or make an example of her.

Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 05:30:08 AM
I need someone who's good with cpanel, upgrading forums etc.

I might PM Pika or Adam about it, they've experience on this.

What kind of problem do you have? Are you trying to upgrade?

They transferred the forum over but it's spewing errors and half of the stuff in the reply section isn't showing up (such as smileys and buttons for quotes etc). Thought reinstalling or upgrading SMF may solve this, but it'll probably cause more problems. The only thing so far I've done was fix themes and a very crap attempt at uploading an SMF update.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 29, 2011, 06:58:20 AM
Scraphead mentioned Spasticity on Duncs forum.  “From the looks of it, it's going to be like Intensity, except marketed towards younger members.” Shleed’s forum, huh?

You know what I automatically thought? “Marketed"? Is that kind of like exclusionary? Kind of like a cliquey fraternity for cool aspies? I smiled at that – “cool aspies”. Then I thought “I wonder who the people who may think that they fit that label”. By the looks I had everyone right except apparently Bint.

Was it high school or primary school where people would start secret clubs and say “You are not invited because you are not cool.” I forget. Was too long ago and I don’t think I was that interested in being in the cool crowd. In fact, if a poor memory serves me right, I think I used to smirk in watching people fawn and fall over themselves in trying to fit in and be cool.

That said, I think that the forum will certainly serve a purpose, no doubt, for the cool aspies to practice their coolness and saturate themselves in their radical, youthful, cutting edge, hardcore, whatever bullshit it is such aspies aspire for.

So with such curiosity I thought I would peek in and see what you may have to say about such a forum. I viewed this thread and was not at all let down.

"Misplaced moral outrage"? Missed that? Here?

I did see a few people stating strong claims and backing them. Kind of what this site is about.

Morality? Certainly a difference of opinions on what was considered good form and bad form. I would not consider that either misplaced nor outrage.

Is it another famous case of exaggeration or misrepresentation?

Is making claims and backing claims still an accepted norm on the site? When it happens, are the members happy to misconstrue it into lecturing or being a headmaster and teaching a lesson?

See I was under the impression that the members on here were all out of school and everyone here over 18 and that making and backing claims was on the front page as a “must do that if you enter” and an integral part of this place, and that 18 or 84 there were no protected classes and that all members had to do this. I believed that there was no place for cliques (where people backed each other because they were cool, or young or given free passes on such basis). Arguing for or against an opinion, not for or against a person.

Bodie, Oldies can get it wrong, sure. So can younger folk and sometimes both are wrong or both are right. Sometimes difference of opinion is simply that. From my reading of what you wrote here (correct me if I am wrong by all means) you are saying that young people over the age of 18 here ought to be a protected class and given more latitude than older members because they are young, and that older members are far more likely to be close-minded and have a false sense of superiority?

Spasticity, and the want for cool older members and young members, seems to be a representation of the younger member’s sense of superiority. I know you will not want to see this because I am older and probably not even cool :P

You too will likely see it as a worthy for the oppressed youngsters to break their shackles from the oldie regime and build their self-worth and so on. Perhaps you are looking at it through the eyes of a young Bodie. Perhaps that may be enough to skew perspective a little? Perhaps you even misjudge simple things, like a lesson rather than a claim being backed, or who is on a high horse and who isn’t? Or even making an example, instead of pointing out what is seen as behavior that is disagreed upon?

Not saying I am right either. I don’t much care if I am or not. Just giving an opinion and watching people make some strange assertions. I was seeing too, what the go was with Spasticity.

Anyhow I will let you all get back to making claims about how horrible I2 is, how good Spasticity is and how the cool members on i2 are going to Spasticity and why.

All the best Shleed. I hope that you are able to cut all bullshit out of the site (unlike what Adam thinks, I think that the bullshit is far from a problem of the older members) and that it is a raging success   I really do.

Dunno if this is going to change the site or the dynamics or culture but sure as hell worth a look here in any case.

Edit: Oh I see Spasticity is not working. Perhaps Odeon could help. I am sure he is an older member who is not cool, but he is a nice bloke and probably will help if you ask.

Zengh, just saw your Pm and responded to it. BTW say hello to Eris for me if you see her around the traps.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: renaeden on November 29, 2011, 07:12:08 AM
^Agree with a lot of your post, Sir Les. The "moral outrage" thing is not new, it has happened lots of times before I think, in different guises. Because it is that way, it is seen as new, never happened before. But really it has. Just read through the older threads.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 11:09:35 AM
It's not "marketed" at anything and that was never my intention, except as a place for when people are tired of having to see constant drama on websites like i2. Anyone can join and post. If anything it's more like i2 and ZOMG mixed together.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on November 29, 2011, 11:22:26 AM
Young people probably make more mistakes.  I made loads.  Still do.  I just choose to take into account the fact that i have twenty years worth of life experience over them.   So,  yeah i probably go out of my way to be a bit more understanding.

I don't know anything about a secret club.  If you mean Schleeds site,  and you didn't get invited i wouldn't take it personally.  I didn't get an invite either.

I never coined the phrase 'teaching a lesson' i just responded to it.

No i don't think i am thinking fanciful thoughts about my youth.  My youth is gone.  I am almost as old as you. 

Quote
Bodie, Oldies can get it wrong, sure. So can younger folk and sometimes both are wrong or both are right. Sometimes difference of opinion is simply that. From my reading of what you wrote here (correct me if I am wrong by all means) you are saying that young people over the age of 18 here ought to be a protected class and given more latitude than older members because they are young, and that older members are far more likely to be close-minded and have a false sense of superiority?
i don't know if you mean this site? If it is, then it's not what i mean.  If i choose to be a certain way with a group of people it is my choice.  I don't think i have any influence whatsoever in what others do.  Don't see this as a one voice place, but a group of independent individuals.   

In my own words i would say that i go out of my way to get along with younger people.  They are the future.  It makes no sense to me to alienate a group of people by preaching my morals and values at them.  I can remember lectures when i was young and i would repeat in my head over and over 'not listening not listening not listening...'  but then would nod at an appropriate moment or just say anything for lecture to be over.  It is not the case if you are thinking i want to give them a free pass to misbehave.  Not at all.  I just think it gets to a point and they stop listening as it sounds like a lecture.  I think it is best to talk to them rather than at them.

I do think a few older people get on their high horses and claim superiority.  I also think there are some young arrogant shits around.  ? 

Quote
Perhaps you even misjudge simple things, like a lesson rather than a claim being backed, or who is on a high horse and who isn’t? Or even making an example, instead of pointing out what is seen as behavior that is disagreed upon?
No not all.  I had no problem with your call out of Butterflies.  I agreed with the principal.  I am all for pointing things out too.  It just went on and on, with no real purpose and no real benefit.  I think its fair to call out anyone on here.  Regardless of age. 

This was getting over the top.  First odeon, then Pyraxis coming in with "Les told me how nasty you was and now i see for myself"   This is more than pointing things out?


     

   
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 29, 2011, 11:37:14 AM
Quote
I don't know anything about a secret club.  If you mean Schleeds site,  and you didn't get invited i wouldn't take it personally.  I didn't get an invite either.

You would very definately have got an invite as soon as the site was working properly.

I didn't really want to invite a lot of people to the site, only for them to see a half-finished site, and think "this is shit, I'm not coming back."

It seems to be up and working well now, so anyone wanting to join should head on over.

It's definately not a secret club though. We're trying to get as many people interested as possible. It might be a good option for anyone who thinks this site has gone downhill recently.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on November 29, 2011, 12:20:16 PM
Scraphead mentioned Spasticity on Duncs forum. Derp derp derp...










.... derp derp derp.

tl;dr

That's some major butthurt Sir Les.  ::)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 12:22:21 PM
Quote
If you mean Schleeds site,  and you didn't get invited i wouldn't take it personally.

I never had any intention on making it exclusive and I didn't "invite" anyone, if that's what you're implying. Everyone is welcome to join.

That said, it's best not to join at this very moment until the issues are sorted. I'm hopeful Odeon or whoever willing to help will sort it.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 12:34:02 PM
Think I've got the hang of it. Backed up current forum and decided to do a clean install, then I'll install the themes and mods from the forum and then get everyone to rejoin.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on November 29, 2011, 12:58:16 PM
Think I've got the hang of it. Backed up current forum and decided to do a clean install, then I'll install the themes and mods from the forum and then get everyone to rejoin.

I'm obviously in the dark about this, but what is the nature of the disagreement between you and peeguy??
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 01:12:15 PM
Pea can join. We've no issues anymore.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on November 29, 2011, 01:18:44 PM
Quote
I don't know anything about a secret club.  If you mean Schleeds site,  and you didn't get invited i wouldn't take it personally.  I didn't get an invite either.

You would very definately have got an invite as soon as the site was working properly.

I didn't really want to invite a lot of people to the site, only for them to see a half-finished site, and think "this is shit, I'm not coming back."

It seems to be up and working well now, so anyone wanting to join should head on over.

It's definately not a secret club though. We're trying to get as many people interested as possible. It might be a good option for anyone who thinks this site has gone downhill recently.
I know.  I just saw the link and joined.  I didn't think there had been invitations.  I would have tried to join anyway, invited or not :zoinks:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 01:30:55 PM
Anyways, the forum is finally back up and working properly. Everyone rejoin.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on November 29, 2011, 01:46:25 PM
Anyways, the forum is finally back up and working properly. Everyone rejoin.

My penis spam thread is gone. :bigcry:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 29, 2011, 02:24:01 PM
You young folks can heave a sigh of relief.  This old fuddy-duddy has enough trouble translating the new ideas and words of the over-30 crowd to even consider joining S2.0.  But I wish each and every one of you good and happy posting.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on November 29, 2011, 02:30:07 PM
It's not "marketed" at anything and that was never my intention, except as a place for when people are tired of having to see constant drama on websites like i2. Anyone can join and post. If anything it's more like i2 and ZOMG mixed together.

Unless you want to moderate it, it will have drama. Just a fact.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 29, 2011, 02:31:30 PM
You young folks can heave a sigh of relief.  This old fuddy-duddy has enough trouble translating the new ideas and words of the over-30 crowd to even consider joining S2.0.  But I wish each and every one of you good and happy posting.

Thanks, although you would be more than welcome, and even if you don't fancy posting much, you would always be welcome to come over for a snoop.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Queen Victoria on November 29, 2011, 02:32:10 PM
You young folks can heave a sigh of relief.  This old fuddy-duddy has enough trouble translating the new ideas and words of the over-30 crowd to even consider joining S2.0.  But I wish each and every one of you good and happy posting.

Thanks, although you would be more than welcome, and even if you don't fancy posting much, you would always be welcome to come over for a snoop.

Don't tempt me vixen.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 03:04:02 PM
It's not "marketed" at anything and that was never my intention, except as a place for when people are tired of having to see constant drama on websites like i2. Anyone can join and post. If anything it's more like i2 and ZOMG mixed together.

Unless you want to moderate it, it will have drama. Just a fact.

It will be moderated in case things get out of hand, ie. excess spamming and the like.

The exclusion of callouts may help, but I do expect some drama from time to time.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on November 29, 2011, 03:05:29 PM
It's not "marketed" at anything and that was never my intention, except as a place for when people are tired of having to see constant drama on websites like i2. Anyone can join and post. If anything it's more like i2 and ZOMG mixed together.

Unless you want to moderate it, it will have drama. Just a fact.

It will be moderated. :P

What are the rules?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 03:06:09 PM
Sorry, edited the post after you replied that. See above.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on November 29, 2011, 03:06:51 PM
Ah, OK. Thanks.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 03:07:35 PM
The other rules is no illegal photos etc. The TOS is slightly more stricter than here, but nothing that will restrict most members (unless you're Lit).
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on November 29, 2011, 03:13:24 PM
Yeah, most hosts have more strict TOSs. The thing to watch for is if you want to allow nudes. The host might judge them differently than you. There is always a clause stating that they can do whatever they want, basically, so...
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 03:20:14 PM
Porn is not allowed unless it's aimed at 18+ members. So it's possible, but I have to make it clear about that.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on November 29, 2011, 03:22:01 PM
You probably will have problems if you allow minors anywhere on the site.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on November 29, 2011, 03:25:23 PM
don't let under 18s on

I want to be able to flirt with anyone who says they're female, without then finding out they're 15 :M
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on November 29, 2011, 03:26:13 PM
Not to mention that it's the kind of thing that would get the site shut down.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 03:37:32 PM
Registration automatically blocks people under 18 from joining. Unless they lie, then I'll ban them. :zoinks:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on November 29, 2011, 03:45:18 PM
Wait we're not supposed to post porn?

Oops.  :-[
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 03:46:22 PM
You can. If you're over 18. :P

Anyways, EVERYONE GET IN THERE! :zoinks:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on November 29, 2011, 03:53:05 PM
You can. If you're over 18. :P

Anyways, EVERYONE GET IN THERE! :zoinks:

Oh right , phew.  :laugh:

Yes , come on in everyone.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on November 29, 2011, 03:59:26 PM
i can't get in there?

says my username doesn't exist?
do i have to re register

ohhh i feel too old
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 04:01:43 PM
The forum was wiped earlier today so everyone who didn't do so already needs to reregister.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on November 29, 2011, 04:05:46 PM
ahh ok
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Psychophant on November 29, 2011, 04:24:30 PM
Thanks, but, I'll pass. 
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 04:33:42 PM
Your loss.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'andersom' on November 29, 2011, 04:49:37 PM
You young folks can heave a sigh of relief.  This old fuddy-duddy has enough trouble translating the new ideas and words of the over-30 crowd to even consider joining S2.0.  But I wish each and every one of you good and happy posting.
Staying with my Queen, as her bovine Lady in Waiting.
Two forums and appearing on fb now and then is the maximum I can handle lately.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on November 29, 2011, 05:05:59 PM
Looks good :thumbup:

Good to have an alternative,  for when my mojo flow gets fucked with :zoinks:  and to see eris
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 29, 2011, 05:28:17 PM
Yeah, but it's not going to be an anti-i2 site or anything. Although people can bitch about it if they want.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on November 29, 2011, 05:41:07 PM
Yeah, but it's not going to be an anti-i2 site or anything. Although people can bitch about it if they want.
I don't wanna bitch about it!  I still like it here!   Alternatives are good though.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Psychophant on November 29, 2011, 06:12:19 PM
Good luck with the site, hope it works out well.   :thumbup:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 30, 2011, 07:21:16 AM
Yeah, but it's not going to be an anti-i2 site or anything. Although people can bitch about it if they want.
Of course not. Why would anyone think it was anti-I2 or born from such sentiment? Hardly needed saying Shleed.
I hope it doesn't become the bitchfest that I2 is right now.

Surprised there's already so much activity in only a night. People must REALLY be sick of i2.
Being like this place, but without the misplaced moral outrage would be a good thing.
Yeah I think spasticity is best as a …. version of intensity, without the bullshit
It might be a good option for anyone who thinks this site has gone downhill recently.
….. except as a place for when people are tired of having to see constant drama on websites like i2.

Quote
I don't know anything about a secret club.  If you mean Schleeds site,  and you didn't get invited i wouldn't take it personally.  I didn't get an invite either.

You would very definately have got an invite as soon as the site was working properly.
 
Very nice of you to say Butterflies, but in truth I think that the “bullshit” will be migrated by the members going over and I think this will benefit I2 certainly and I really hope Spasticity too.  Will give you guys an interesting dynamic and a new environment and culture to create. You can back each other regardless of what opinion is stated and in the event that you have a difference of opinion with a member or two, you all can bring out the daggers like you all did with Bint.
Not really my kind of gig but I think there may be something in it for you guys. I never really got that kind of behavior. Bit too social or something, I dunno.
Scraphead mentioned Spasticity on Duncs forum. Derp derp derp....... derp derp derp.
tl;dr
That's some major butthurt Sir Les.  ::)
Not at all Scrap. I wish the site well, but do not necessarily want to be a part of it.
You seem really smart when you talk about rocks, you know. Really smart. Reading emotional attachment to things, or empathizing, really is not your bag. I reckon talking about rocks is where you keep it real and relevant.  Rocks, cars, Chugging beer and banging girls. Like an aspie Frank the Tank.  :autism:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 30, 2011, 07:22:17 AM
Young people probably make more mistakes.  I made loads.  Still do.  I just choose to take into account the fact that i have twenty years worth of life experience over them.   So,  yeah i probably go out of my way to be a bit more understanding.
This was getting over the top.  First odeon, then Pyraxis coming in with "Les told me how nasty you was and now i see for myself"   This is more than pointing things out?
First Odeon and then Pyraxis?
Ok so two people on the site who were older members disagreed on the behavior of another member and that was over the top?
Ok….so the collective group of Butterflies,Scrap, Adam, Squid, Bodie, and Bint (until recently)arguing against Odeon and that was Ok? Then the group of six became ganged up on and it was over the top that such strong views were aired by more than 1 member against the helpless hapless group? I see.
Rather than Odeon and Pyraxis objecting, both perhapos ought to have been more understanding? Perhaps allowed a more than a three to one in an argument, to be fairer and not give the impression of a ganging up or stymieing creativity and potential for future? Allow for difference in life experience? Protect them from calling it as you see it in case they have not had the opportunity to come across something in their own life experience to know what it is you object to? Let them make mistakes and if they are under (30?) do not highlight it least you get seen as a headmaster?
It sounds like a bit of a cop out to be honest and a rather lopsided playing field. A protected class as it were. Allow the younger members more leeway because they are young and let them be unchecked by your own objections to anything they say or do. Or if you do defend anything you say, cop it sweet but be delicate in your replies. Don’t and you will be seen as being on a high horse, a headmaster, mentally ill, having a false sense of superiority?
Kinda sounds like what you are saying and it doesn’t seem to fit the “make a claim and be prepared to back it”.
I do think a few older people get on their high horses and claim superiority.  I also think there are some young arrogant shits around.  ? 
I see you making a claim of the former and not in possible but assertively saying it is so. Did not see anything close to any suggestion of the later. (Are you sure it may not be a case of the younger ones on high horses and older ones arrogant and set in their ways? That reading actually makes more sense to me. (Perhaps in that it better fits my self-image) In fact I have seen nothing but support of the younger ones regardless of what they say or do.
It looks a tad biased to be honest. Am I reading too much into this?
It is integral to my trying to nut out this site and the dynamics and culture that is/was here and what is/isn’t changing and why?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: P7PSP on November 30, 2011, 07:58:50 AM
Putting a (not) Elder Forum @ Spasticity to hide sock puppets might be a good idea as well. I remember when there was mention of de eldering here some time back. I always inferred that hiding sock puppet activity was the true reason for the push to de elder members who had not been here for a while.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'andersom' on November 30, 2011, 08:13:31 AM
Putting a (not) Elder Forum @ Spasticity to hide sock puppets might be a good idea as well. I remember when there was mention of de eldering here some time back. I always inferred that hiding sock puppet activity was the true reason for the push to de elder members who had not been here for a while.

Wouldn't sockpuppeting like that require very long term planning? Seems so unlikely to me.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 30, 2011, 08:18:19 AM
You're welcome to join, Les.

As for the rest, TL;DR.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on November 30, 2011, 08:34:20 AM
I'm not listening! I'm not listening! Ner ner ner!  :smarty:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 30, 2011, 08:38:34 AM
TS;DR
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on November 30, 2011, 08:52:00 AM
Scraphead mentioned Spasticity on Duncs forum. Derp derp derp....... derp derp derp.
tl;dr
That's some major butthurt Sir Les.  ::)
Not at all Scrap. I wish the site well, but do not necessarily want to be a part of it.
You seem really smart when you talk about rocks, you know. Really smart. Reading emotional attachment to things, or empathizing, really is not your bag. I reckon talking about rocks is where you keep it real and relevant.  Rocks, cars, Chugging beer and banging girls. Like an aspie Frank the Tank.  :autism:

Thanks for proving your butthurt.  :thumbup:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on November 30, 2011, 08:53:51 AM
Putting a (not) Elder Forum @ Spasticity to hide sock puppets might be a good idea as well. I remember when there was mention of de eldering here some time back. I always inferred that hiding sock puppet activity was the true reason for the push to de elder members who had not been here for a while.

Aside from Butterflies using her cousins account, what sockpuppet activity has occured??
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on November 30, 2011, 09:07:24 AM
Quote
First Odeon and then Pyraxis?
Ok so two people on the site who were older members disagreed on the behavior of another member and that was over the top?
If it were as you stated then no.  However,  she had already answered all the questions making it repetitive and pointless.   Pyraxis stated quite openly that she didn't really have the details but she thought Butterflies to be as nasty as you had told her.   So how could she disagree?


Quote
Ok….so the collective group of Butterflies,Scrap, Adam, Squid, Bodie, and Bint (until recently)arguing against Odeon and that was Ok? Then the group of six became ganged up on and it was over the top that such strong views were aired by more than 1 member against the helpless hapless group? I see.
  This was the thread that you made in the call out section,  after you had left, then you stated you felt apathy about it and then left again.  Odeon clearly stated it was not actually a call out so i did not realise there was any protocol regarding other members posting.  I do not recall it ever happening like that.   If i am wrong and there is a procedure that i should have observed then i apologise.  I do not believe the six in question were acting as a group.  It was six individuals with their own opinion which was different to Odeon.  Did Odeon feel ganged up on?  If he did he gave no indication of the fact.  If he had asked me to butt out i would have respected his request.  He also had the option of calling out Butterflies himself.  This would have kept our comments to the peanut gallery.  He chose not to take this option.  I am happy to say sorry to odeon if he felt ganged up on.

Quote
Rather than Odeon and Pyraxis objecting, both perhapos ought to have been more understanding? Perhaps allowed a more than a three to one in an argument, to be fairer and not give the impression of a ganging up or stymieing creativity and potential for future? Allow for difference in life experience? Protect them from calling it as you see it in case they have not had the opportunity to come across something in their own life experience to know what it is you object to? Let them make mistakes and if they are under (30?) do not highlight it least you get seen as a headmaster?
It sounds like a bit of a cop out to be honest and a rather lopsided playing field. A protected class as it were. Allow the younger members more leeway because they are young and let them be unchecked by your own objections to anything they say or do. Or if you do defend anything you say, cop it sweet but be delicate in your replies. Don’t and you will be seen as being on a high horse, a headmaster, mentally ill, having a false sense of superiority?
Kinda sounds like what you are saying and it doesn’t seem to fit the “make a claim and be prepared to back it”.
  Except that is not what i said at all.  Those are your words.  I said that i personally choose to go out my way and take into account that i have more life experience.  I said that i make more of an effort to understand young people as i don't see any benefit in alienating the next generation.  I also said that i have no influence over anyone else here.  I never said anything about letting them off scott free.  I just wouldn't persue them for weeks.

Quote
I see you making a claim of the former and not in possible but assertively saying it is so. Did not see anything close to any suggestion of the later. (Are you sure it may not be a case of the younger ones on high horses and older ones arrogant and set in their ways? That reading actually makes more sense to me. (Perhaps in that it better fits my self-image) In fact I have seen nothing but support of the younger ones regardless of what they say or do.
It looks a tad biased to be honest. Am I reading too much into this?
It is integral to my trying to nut out this site and the dynamics and culture that is/was here and what is/isn’t changing and why?
I really don't know what it is you are reading in to this.  I get the impression that the words i have written already have not been received by yourself as i intended.  I have no problem with older people calling out younger people,  or vice versa.  Or two people calling one person,  or one person calling out ten.  I felt Butterflies was being pursued.  It seemed to be for kicks or revenge rather than any hopeful resolution of a disagreement.  Odeon had said he was 'playing with her' and 'teaching her a lesson' (although fair play to him he did say he should not have said it).   So, yes, i felt it was OTT.  I have never stated that young people should not be corrected.  Corrected yes.   persued for lulz no.





   
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 30, 2011, 10:14:13 AM
I think I'll focus on promoting the forum more than participate in this drama. I really can't be bothered backing up stuff when my intention of the forum is to not be a rival of i2. If anything it's a tribute to i2 due to it's name (spastic intensity).

However, this drama may be a good source of income when it comes to new members. :zoinks:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on November 30, 2011, 12:47:49 PM
I think I'll focus on promoting the forum more than participate in this drama. I really can't be bothered backing up stuff when my intention of the forum is to not be a rival of i2. If anything it's a tribute to i2 due to it's name (spastic intensity).

However, this drama may be a good source of income when it comes to new members. :zoinks:
I object to your use of the word drama. Drama suggests excitement.   It is repetitive,  boring,  and not what i come on the internet for.   Yes it is making your site more appealing by the second.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on November 30, 2011, 01:35:34 PM
Bodie, you gave Sir Les more attention than he deserves.

As of late, he's been little more than a shit-stirer.

Hell, come to think of it, he's done quite a bit of shit-stiring here for quite some time.

I'm beginging to think he's a bit of a poisonous personality.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 30, 2011, 01:47:18 PM
I agree. Since returning to the site, I think Les has made 1 post that hasn't been about the drama, or Spasticity.

I can practically feel his butthurt from here.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on November 30, 2011, 06:17:24 PM
Putting a (not) Elder Forum @ Spasticity to hide sock puppets might be a good idea as well. I remember when there was mention of de eldering here some time back. I always inferred that hiding sock puppet activity was the true reason for the push to de elder members who had not been here for a while.

Aside from Butterflies using her cousins account, what sockpuppet activity has occured??

Yours. I believe you have an old sockpuppet account.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on November 30, 2011, 06:26:57 PM
I think spokane had one years ago too

Anyway I'm not reading and of les's rambling essays. I have books to read that are actually interesting  :2thumbsup:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on November 30, 2011, 06:28:30 PM
Yes, Kit had one IIRC.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: P7PSP on November 30, 2011, 07:30:11 PM
Putting a (not) Elder Forum @ Spasticity to hide sock puppets might be a good idea as well. I remember when there was mention of de eldering here some time back. I always inferred that hiding sock puppet activity was the true reason for the push to de elder members who had not been here for a while.

Aside from Butterflies using her cousins account, what sock puppet activity has occured??
That was not in reference to sockpuppet accounts here. It was stated in reference to discussions of de eldering people here to protect sock puppets (that is the reason I inferred) that were being used at WP. 
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 30, 2011, 07:33:48 PM
:santa:

the oldies can get it wrong sometimes, flutterbies.  there is a misguided belief of superiority due to age. also horses tend to get taller as you get old,  they get so tall until 'you can't get off your high horse' :hahaha:

 Says the almost-40-year-old.  Soon you'll be one of us.  :hahaha:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: ProfessorFarnsworth on November 30, 2011, 08:00:59 PM
lol, I mention the site is running smoothly and suddenly wham, inaccessible.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: P7PSP on November 30, 2011, 08:02:02 PM
lol, I mention the site is running smoothly and suddenly wham, inaccessible.  :laugh:
:indeed: You have the Midas touch.  :thumbup:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on November 30, 2011, 08:11:18 PM
Working fine for me still. Perhaps the host itself is being iffy at the moment.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on November 30, 2011, 08:25:51 PM
:santa:

the oldies can get it wrong sometimes, flutterbies.  there is a misguided belief of superiority due to age. also horses tend to get taller as you get old,  they get so tall until 'you can't get off your high horse' :hahaha:

 Says the almost-40-year-old.  Soon you'll be one of us.  :hahaha:
True.  I am always gonna be behind my brothers though,  and they know best because they are older!   I was the youngest of four children so i grew up with that line.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: P7PSP on November 30, 2011, 09:12:40 PM
Bodie, you gave Sir Les more attention than he deserves.

As of late, he's been little more than a shit-stirer.

Hell, come to think of it, he's done quite a bit of shit-stiring here for quite some time.

I'm beginging to think he's a bit of a poisonous personality.
Nonsense. He is a good member.

I agree. Since returning to the site, I think Les has made 1 post that hasn't been about the drama, or Spasticity.
You do have the option of ignoring his posts.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 30, 2011, 09:18:59 PM
I agree. Since returning to the site, I think Les has made 1 post that hasn't been about the drama, or Spasticity.
You do have the option of ignoring his posts.

 :indeed:

I've also got the option of commenting on them.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on November 30, 2011, 09:38:16 PM
so is Les not leaving after all now?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on November 30, 2011, 09:47:13 PM
so is Les not leaving after all now?

No. It looks like he's decided to stay after all.

He returned several hours after Odeon made his thread asking for an end to the drama, and all but one of his posts appear to be geared towards stirring up the drama again.

Obviously it was just a coincidence though.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: P7PSP on November 30, 2011, 09:49:46 PM
so is Les not leaving after all now?
He is already back. He just took a sabbatical.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on November 30, 2011, 10:05:43 PM
He's been posting all along though ???
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: P7PSP on November 30, 2011, 10:23:43 PM
He's been posting all along though ???
He probably missed you Soph.  :thumbup:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 01, 2011, 12:41:08 AM


Well
Putting a (not) Elder Forum @ Spasticity to hide sock puppets might be a good idea as well. I remember when there was mention of de eldering here some time back. I always inferred that hiding sock puppet activity was the true reason for the push to de elder members who had not been here for a while.

Aside from Butterflies using her cousins account, what sockpuppet activity has occured??

Yours. I believe you have an old sockpuppet account.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! I damn near tried to make the sock obvious enough to anyone wha was paying attention. Its original name was DefinitelyNotS(crap)H(eap).

My only intention for that sock was for the lulz.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 01, 2011, 12:44:16 AM
Putting a (not) Elder Forum @ Spasticity to hide sock puppets might be a good idea as well. I remember when there was mention of de eldering here some time back. I always inferred that hiding sock puppet activity was the true reason for the push to de elder members who had not been here for a while.

Aside from Butterflies using her cousins account, what sock puppet activity has occured??
That was not in reference to sockpuppet accounts here. It was stated in reference to discussions of de eldering people here to protect sock puppets (that is the reason I inferred) that were being used at WP.

Oh, yeah right. Weren't some older members (Hale_Bopp, etc) suspected??
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 01, 2011, 02:05:42 AM


Well
Putting a (not) Elder Forum @ Spasticity to hide sock puppets might be a good idea as well. I remember when there was mention of de eldering here some time back. I always inferred that hiding sock puppet activity was the true reason for the push to de elder members who had not been here for a while.

Aside from Butterflies using her cousins account, what sockpuppet activity has occured??

Yours. I believe you have an old sockpuppet account.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! I damn near tried to make the sock obvious enough to anyone wha was paying attention. Its original name was DefinitelyNotS(crap)H(eap).

My only intention for that sock was for the lulz.

Oh yes, I know. It's one of the oldest remaining and it would be a shame to shut it down.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 01, 2011, 02:07:44 AM
so is Les not leaving after all now?

No. It looks like he's decided to stay after all.

He returned several hours after Odeon made his thread asking for an end to the drama, and all but one of his posts appear to be geared towards stirring up the drama again.

Obviously it was just a coincidence though.

Not sure he said he would leave but he didn't post anything for a few weeks.

And just because I wanted an end to the drama, he doesn't have to. It's the beauty of an unmoderated site.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 01, 2011, 02:08:19 AM
He's been posting all along though ???

No, there was a gap of several weeks.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on December 01, 2011, 02:11:57 AM
oh right ok cool, that must have been when I was in London or something then
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 01, 2011, 02:13:46 AM
As a matter of fact I think you were. Things were quiet.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on December 01, 2011, 02:14:44 AM
are you calling me a spammer, Mr Fifty-five-thousand-posts? :M
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 01, 2011, 02:20:02 AM
are you calling me a spammer, Mr Fifty-five-thousand-posts? :M

My posts are of highest quality.  :M
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on December 01, 2011, 03:31:36 AM
so is Les not leaving after all now?

No. It looks like he's decided to stay after all.

He returned several hours after Odeon made his thread asking for an end to the drama, and all but one of his posts appear to be geared towards stirring up the drama again.

Obviously it was just a coincidence though.

Not sure he said he would leave but he didn't post anything for a few weeks.

And just because I wanted an end to the drama, he doesn't have to. It's the beauty of an unmoderated site.
Quote
Re: Where are they
« Reply #408 on: 28 October 2011, 16:25:07 »

    ReplyQuote

Quote from: odeon on 27 October 2011, 15:41:52

    Ask him.


He's done, and so am I.  At least for the time being.
If you are referring to the above post Flutterbies,  then i took it to mean he was leaving too.   
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 01, 2011, 03:54:11 AM
Who's the quote from? I don't think it's from Sir Les.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on December 01, 2011, 04:00:57 AM
No it was where you asked MLA to ask him?  He did and that was his reply (MLA's reply)    If you look in 'where are they now'  i think about the end of October you will find it.  I seriously spent too much time on this subject so i can't be arsed to look again.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 01, 2011, 04:02:14 AM
Ah, yes, I remember now. Thanks. :)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 01, 2011, 04:30:55 AM
Bodie, you gave Sir Les more attention than he deserves.

As of late, he's been little more than a shit-stirer.

Hell, come to think of it, he's done quite a bit of shit-stiring here for quite some time.

I'm beginging to think he's a bit of a poisonous personality.
I have been  doing and saying pretty much what I have always done and said….for the last three or four years.
So it makes as much sense as you saying"I have been sleeping with my girlfriend for the last 3 months and things are cool. But now all of a sudden I have a vague suspicion that she has a penis"

Now Scrap, I COULD just laugh at you for being terminally stupid in trying this bullshit on in the first place OR I could be a bit more charitable and presume you know this to be bullshit but want to say it anyhow.

So why make a fucking stupid statement you know is false? Well it took me a while to put the pieces together but I think I have it. You and a group of others here have been piling the bullshit on pretty thick and fast and misrepresenting pretty much everything. When called on bullshit you back each other with more bullshit and then make bullshit claims with who you are arguing with that they have a mental illness, are on meth, shit-stirring, having a poisonous personality, policing the site, being butthurt, being morally outraged, causing drama and so on. 

Yes none of this shit is true and nor do you believe it but it is said anyhow. You guys are politicking. Socially preening and holding a party line and one will back the other as long as you agree. If you do not agree and argue against the party line you are exited from the party (ie Binty – damn she was one of your most vocal party supporters).

I did not understand it at first and was apathetic because it all seemed a little vague and difficult to interpret. I am a spazz. I saw what was happening but it took a while to understand it completely. Social politicking is not my strong suit.

Now I know, this shit is hilarious.  Aspies social politicking. Better get Hadron back to help out here. He will have an opinion or two, and they too will make fuck all sense.

I agree. Since returning to the site, I think Les has made 1 post that hasn't been about the drama, or Spasticity.

I can practically feel his butthurt from here.

Right on cue. A stupid claim backed absolutely. You are not a stranger to an odd misrepresentation or two Butterflies.
Love to know what I am supposed to be butthurt about but maybe such mysteries are best left to wild rampant imaginations and not shared.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 01, 2011, 04:39:41 AM
I agree. Since returning to the site, I think Les has made 1 post that hasn't been about the drama, or Spasticity.
You do have the option of ignoring his posts.

 :indeed:

I've also got the option of commenting on them.

So has Les.

In fact I would go as far to say with Odeon bowing out gracefully from calling you guys on drama-esque behaviour and Py rather silent on things you guys did not so much as pause for breathe before railing on I2 as seen in the first two pages in this thread. knowing you were not likely to have anyone question it. Oh well that plan went to shit.  :autism:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on December 01, 2011, 08:29:11 AM
Py rather silent? WTF? Do you mean in the last day or two?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 01, 2011, 09:19:51 AM
Maybe she's just shy. :P
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 01, 2011, 09:22:11 AM
Maybe she's just shy. :P
Py shy?....I really do not think so
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 01, 2011, 09:22:53 AM
Maybe she's just shy. :P
Py shy?....I really do not think so

Shy and intimidated. :zoinks:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 01, 2011, 09:25:17 AM
Maybe she's just shy. :P
Py shy?....I really do not think so

Shy and intimidated. :zoinks:

Oh dear God.

Now THIS defines shit-stirring.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 01, 2011, 10:17:39 AM
Maybe she's just shy. :P
Py shy?....I really do not think so

Shy and intimidated. :zoinks:

Oh dear God.

Now THIS defines shit-stirring.

:angel:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 01, 2011, 12:27:52 PM
I have been sleeping with my girlfriend for the last 3 months and things are cool. But now all of a sudden I have a vague suspicion that she has a penis.

Is this happening to you often?
If so, then I suggest reconsidering which drinking establishments you choose to frequent.

*Protip. Always check for the Adams Apple. If it's got the apple, you don't wanna grapple.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 01, 2011, 01:07:53 PM
Yes none of this shit is true and nor do you believe it but it is said anyhow.

ZOMG!!! Sir Les is a telepath who can read our mindzz Ooooh Noooeeess!!!  :GA:

Quote
You guys are politicking. Socially preening and holding a party line and one will back the other as long as you agree.

It's a conspirachaaaaaaahhh!!!  :tinfoil:     :GA:

Quote
If you do not agree and argue against the party line you are exited from the party (ie Binty – damn she was one of your most vocal party supporters).

Binty was never a "supporter" of mine or anyone else here that I've seen. How do you expect anyone to take this shit seriously when you accuse me of being on bed with binty?? We can barely just tolerate eachother.

Talk about spouting bullshit!   :hahaha:

Quote
I did not understand it at first and was apathetic because it all seemed a little vague and difficult to interpret. I am a spazz. I saw what was happening but it took a while to understand it completely. Social politicking is not my strong suit.

Actually, social politicking has been one of your primary endeavors here. Really, with posts packed full of this much crap, how do you expect anyone to seriously consider what you say? Or are you already aware of the fact that you blew much of your credibility in your numerous defences of TCO??
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on December 01, 2011, 02:11:06 PM
lol Bint a supporter of scrap? when was this?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on December 01, 2011, 03:10:32 PM
Since the moment we all conspired to stab Bint in the back apparently.  :lol:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Callaway on December 01, 2011, 03:24:59 PM
Since the moment we all conspired to stab Bint in the back apparently.  :lol:

I guess I don't see it as funny.

I think that it's sad that she interpreted Butterflies and Adam derailing her emo thread as a personal attack on her and that the situation deteriorated from there.  It's sad to me to see that several people who used to see her as a friend seem to be unable to stand her anymore.

I know that I posted about this unfortunate characteristic of her falling out with people over relatively minor issues when she called me out some time ago and most people disagreed with me about it then, but it's still sad to see it played out again.

Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on December 01, 2011, 03:53:48 PM
Since the moment we all conspired to stab Bint in the back apparently.  :lol:

I guess I don't see it as funny.

I think that it's sad that she interpreted Butterflies and Adam derailing her emo thread as a personal attack on her and that the situation deteriorated from there.  It's sad to me to see that several people who used to see her as a friend seem to be unable to stand her anymore.

I know that I posted about this unfortunate characteristic of her falling out with people over relatively minor issues when she called me out some time ago and most people disagreed with me about it then, but it's still sad to see it played out again.

I find it funny Sir Les chose to word it like that , but meh if that's his opinion so be it.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on December 01, 2011, 06:43:33 PM
Maybe she's just shy. :P
Py shy?....I really do not think so

Shy and intimidated. :zoinks:

Oh dear God.

Now THIS defines shit-stirring.

:angel:

 :LOL:

How can I fight you guys when I'm laughing too hard?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on December 01, 2011, 06:55:37 PM
I think that it's sad that she interpreted Butterflies and Adam derailing her emo thread as a personal attack on her and that the situation deteriorated from there.  It's sad to me to see that several people who used to see her as a friend seem to be unable to stand her anymore.

/me offers Callaway a box of Kleenex
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 01, 2011, 08:46:26 PM
lol Bint a supporter of scrap? when was this?

Yeah, that's what I' saying.

I supported her work in digging up threads about TCO because she was exposing the truth. I also plused her a few times for funny jokes and some of the boob spam.

In Sir Les' world that means we might as well be married.  :dunno:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 02, 2011, 04:51:18 AM
I have been sleeping with my girlfriend for the last 3 months and things are cool. But now all of a sudden I have a vague suspicion that she has a penis.

Is this happening to you often?

Is what happening to “me” often
So it makes as much sense as you saying"I have been sleeping with my girlfriend for the last 3 months and things are cool. But now all of a sudden I have a vague suspicion that she has a penis"

If so, then I suggest reconsidering which drinking establishments you choose to frequent.
*Protip. Always check for the Adams Apple. If it's got the apple, you don't wanna grapple.
I suggest that your suggestion is either a case of inability to comprehend, or an inability to read.

Surely it is not another case of you rattling off meaningless misrepresented fiction again?

But hey from your encyclopedic knowledge of all things sexual and vast experience in such matters, please keep the sexual protips coming (pun, get it?…of course you do)[/quote]

Yes none of this shit is true and nor do you believe it but it is said anyhow.
ZOMG!!! Sir Les is a telepath who can read our mindzz Ooooh Noooeeess!!!  :GA:
Nope. Common sense. I know such insight may astound you though Scrap.
You guys are politicking. Socially preening and holding a party line and one will back the other as long as you agree.
It's a conspirachaaaaaaahhh!!!  :tinfoil:     :GA:
You think? Wow. I thought it was a small little clique of spazzes spouting a lot of bullshit and embarrassing themselves by backing such bullshit over and over again. Doesn’t meet my definition, but you are the one telling the story. (By story I mean talking more bullshit again).

If you do not agree and argue against the party line you are exited from the party (ie Binty – damn she was one of your most vocal party supporters).

Binty was never a "supporter" of mine or anyone else here that I've seen. How do you expect anyone to take this shit seriously when you accuse me of being on bed with binty?? We can barely just tolerate eachother.
She WAS a vocal “party supporter” of the party you are a flag-waving member of. Not YOU personally.
Isn’t now of course. She supported not you singularly but your little party lines….until she didn’t. Then she was exited rather decisively.
Actually, social politicking has been one of your primary endeavors here. Really, with posts packed full of this much crap, how do you expect anyone to seriously consider what you say? Or are you already aware of the fact that you blew much of your credibility in your numerous defences of TCO??
I am more than aware of how little store I put in what you think of my credibility or lack there of.
I am more than aware how much you obsess over TCO.


lol Bint a supporter of scrap? when was this?
Explained above

Since the moment we all conspired to stab Bint in the back apparently.  :lol:

Did I say there was a conspiracy to stab Bint in the back Squid? Anywhere? No. Stop misrepresented what I said with what you would have like me to say then .
That’s right never mentioned a conspiracy nor backstabbing.

Since the moment we all conspired to stab Bint in the back apparently.  :lol:

I guess I don't see it as funny.

I think that it's sad that she interpreted Butterflies and Adam derailing her emo thread as a personal attack on her and that the situation deteriorated from there.  It's sad to me to see that several people who used to see her as a friend seem to be unable to stand her anymore.

I know that I posted about this unfortunate characteristic of her falling out with people over relatively minor issues when she called me out some time ago and most people disagreed with me about it then, but it's still sad to see it played out again.

I find it funny Sir Les chose to word it like that , but meh if that's his opinion so be it.

Is it my opinion and is it even what I said? No on both accounts so why are you bullshitting Squiddy?

Callaway I think it is a shame too.

lol Bint a supporter of scrap? when was this?
Yeah, that's what I' saying.
I supported her work in digging up threads about TCO because she was exposing the truth. I also plused her a few times for funny jokes and some of the boob spam.
In Sir Les' world that means we might as well be married.  :dunno:
More bullshit Scrap. Do you feel a compulsive need to spout bullshit?

Scrap misrepresents what I said. Adam agrees and Scrap Agrees with Adam’s agreement of something that he misrepresented.  Party lines are backed.

Fucking priceless.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: V on December 02, 2011, 06:28:52 AM
Well Im not too sure about how things were around here in the past but right now it looks like you've divided into two cliques and are arguing against each other and I thought that kind of thing was what you were trying  to avoid when you signed up here
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 02, 2011, 06:31:45 AM
Well Im not too sure about how things were around here in the past but right now it looks like you've divided into two cliques and are arguing against each other and I thought that kind of thing was what you were trying  to avoid when you signed up here

Two cliques? Nope just the one and me. :)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: V on December 02, 2011, 06:36:48 AM
Well Im not too sure about how things were around here in the past but right now it looks like you've divided into two cliques and are arguing against each other and I thought that kind of thing was what you were trying  to avoid when you signed up here

Two cliques? Nope just the one and me. :)
I was mostly refering to the butterflies/bint iargument
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Psychophant on December 02, 2011, 06:55:26 AM
Well Im not too sure about how things were around here in the past but right now it looks like you've divided into two cliques and are arguing against each other and I thought that kind of thing was what you were trying  to avoid when you signed up here

Two cliques? Nope just the one and me. :)
I was mostly refering to the butterflies/bint iargument

Tbh, I'm having a hard time keeping up with it all and who's talking about what and to whom.   :GA:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 02, 2011, 06:59:05 AM
Well Im not too sure about how things were around here in the past but right now it looks like you've divided into two cliques and are arguing against each other and I thought that kind of thing was what you were trying  to avoid when you signed up here

Two cliques? Nope just the one and me. :)
I was mostly refering to the butterflies/bint iargument

Oh that? Butterflies was part of the clique in mention and disagreed and did not suopport the party line and was condemned by the clique for it and a few people thought it was a bit undeserved and felt a bit sorry for her. I don't think that amounts to an extra clique at all.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 02, 2011, 07:42:47 AM
@V. No cliques have formed over the Binty argument.
Me and Bint had a fairly small argument,and during it Binty fell out with a couple of people who were friends of hers. I have nothing against Bint, and that argument is over as far as I know.

Iwould say that two cliques have formed, but it is over the arguments involving Les, and in the past, Odeon.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 02, 2011, 07:44:19 AM
@V. No cliques have formed over the Binty argument.
Me and Bint had a fairly small argument,and during it Binty fell out with a couple of people who were friends of hers. I have nothing against Bint, and that argument is over as far as I know.

Iwould say that two cliques have formed, but it is over the arguments involving Les, and in the past, Odeon.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 02, 2011, 08:14:12 AM
Two cliques? Interesting. I do not see it.
I see You, Adam, Squid, Scrap and a bit of back up from Bodie and until lately Bint. That is transparent and rather obvious. There is no real backing of opinions, backing rather the clique itself. Someone in that little party says something, and no matter how relevant, realistic or honest, it is backed by the other members absolutely. It is pretty schoolyardish.

Obvious and transparent, as i say.

I think it is funny to watch.

On the other hand finding another supposed clique? Opposing views sure. I am obvious in what I say and think. Such a clique I described above, whilst a bit stupid and not really in line with what i think this site should be about, is at least good value to point out , i do not think you will find that level of supporting the person over the opinion that is integral to such a clique as you belong in, anywhere else but in your clique.

So who are we really saying belongs in another clique? Naming names? Try to to show what we (the other clique) are in two minds about, or perhaps admitting that there are a few people on here disagreeing with members of your clique over different things, which is not really a clique at all.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 02, 2011, 08:21:54 AM
TL:DR.

I did notice you appeared to object to my use of the word "clique."
I would largely agree. I was only using the word to try and explain things to V.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 02, 2011, 08:26:44 AM
TL:DR.

I did notice you appeared to object to my use of the word "clique."
I would largely agree. I was only using the word to try and explain things to V.

I don't object, and it was too long you did not read so i guess you did not see an objection in the first place, right?

I do not object to you using any word. i think that if you believe there are two cliques then it perhaps would really benefit V explaining why you think that. I clearly don't believe there is and you clearly do.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 02, 2011, 08:43:19 AM
V thinks there are two cliques.
He thinks these two cliques have formed over the fight between me and Bint.

I have tried to explain to him that what he is seeing, whether it be an example of clique behaviour or not, is a result of issues between us, and not as a result of anything involving Binty.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 02, 2011, 08:57:31 AM
V thinks there are two cliques.
He thinks these two cliques have formed over the fight between me and Bint.

I have tried to explain to him that what he is seeing, whether it be an example of clique behaviour or not, is a result of issues between us, and not as a result of anything involving Binty.

But doesn't the whole need for "clique like" behaviour rather lend itself to there being a clique or not in the first place. I too have expalined to V that there very definitely is in my opinion a clique. You have suggested two

Iwould say that two cliques have formed, but it is over the arguments involving Les, and in the past, Odeon.

That there is one at least, is i think pretty undeniable. I am interested in your enlightening V and the board as to the other clique, taking into account I see no other clique like behaviour and rather different individuals arguing against members of the clique i mentioned, over different things, without much in the way of cohesion (and backing of the person not the opinion).

No? Maybe there is just one clique then, you think?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on December 02, 2011, 11:03:08 AM
Did I say there was a conspiracy to stab Bint in the back Squid? Anywhere? No. Stop misrepresented what I said with what you would have like me to say then .
That’s right never mentioned a conspiracy nor backstabbing.



Is it my opinion and is it even what I said? No on both accounts so why are you bullshitting Squiddy?
Callaway I think it is a shame too.

So what exactly DID you mean by this?

You can back each other regardless of what opinion is stated and in the event that you have a difference of opinion with a member or two, you all can bring out the daggers like you all did with Bint.

You seem convinced we all turned on Bint due to her disagreeing with Butterflies , frankly that's bullshit.

Let me enlighten you on what happened.


Butterflies and Bint had their argument , I kept out of it , so did Adam , Adam made a jokey post in Bint's thread Bint snapped and accused him of siding against her or some nonsense like that , so I had to sit back and watch as two of my friends were being unfairly slated by Bint but I kept quiet anyway I do not involve myself in fights between friends unless someone is needed to resolve it.

I created this smiley: Pyraxis , and Bint got pissed off and turned on me as she did with Butterflies and Adam.

How Adam and Butterflies act towards others is their own decision as it is with Schleed , Bodie and Scrap, I disagreed with what Odeon said about Butterflies and so did Bodie yet you are under the impression I do this to "back a party member".

I'm not one for cliques never have been , never will , if I react on something I react on it because I wish to , what others do is up to them, but feel free to keep making horribly incorrect assumptions about me.  :lol:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 02, 2011, 12:08:14 PM
Scrap misrepresents what I said. Adam agrees and Scrap Agrees with Adam’s agreement of something that he misrepresented.  Party lines are backed.

Fucking priceless.

THIS is fucking priceless.

Coming from the King of Straw-man arguments, quote-mining, misrepresentations and other red herrings.

:LMAO:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 02, 2011, 03:02:22 PM
Scrap misrepresents what I said. Adam agrees and Scrap Agrees with Adam’s agreement of something that he misrepresented.  Party lines are backed.

Fucking priceless.

THIS is fucking priceless.

Coming from the King of Straw-man arguments, quote-mining, misrepresentations and other red herrings.

:LMAO:

Desperation is a stinky cologne Scrap.

"King of Straw-man arguments, quote-mining, misrepresentations and other red herrings".

I happily admit to quote mining because I back my shit up. As for the rest...desperate flailing fiction.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 02, 2011, 03:38:09 PM
Did I say there was a conspiracy to stab Bint in the back Squid? Anywhere? No. Stop misrepresented what I said with what you would have like me to say then .
That’s right never mentioned a conspiracy nor backstabbing.



Is it my opinion and is it even what I said? No on both accounts so why are you bullshitting Squiddy?
Callaway I think it is a shame too.

So what exactly DID you mean by this?

You can back each other regardless of what opinion is stated and in the event that you have a difference of opinion with a member or two, you all can bring out the daggers like you all did with Bint.

You seem convinced we all turned on Bint due to her disagreeing with Butterflies , frankly that's bullshit.

Let me enlighten you on what happened.


Butterflies and Bint had their argument , I kept out of it , so did Adam , Adam made a jokey post in Bint's thread Bint snapped and accused him of siding against her or some nonsense like that , so I had to sit back and watch as two of my friends were being unfairly slated by Bint but I kept quiet anyway I do not involve myself in fights between friends unless someone is needed to resolve it.

I created this smiley: Pyraxis , and Bint got pissed off and turned on me as she did with Butterflies and Adam.

How Adam and Butterflies act towards others is there own decision as it is with Schleed , Bodie and Scrap, I disagreed with what Odeon said about Butterflies and so did Bodie yet you are under the impression I do this to "back a party member".

I'm not one for cliques never have been , never will , if I react on something I react on it because I wish to , what others do is up to them, but feel free to keep making horribly incorrect assumptions about me.  :lol:

Yes, I will and then you can show me where this announced Backstabbing conspiracy and why I chose such words.

Binty was in your clique and she went from vocal party supporter to ex-vocal party supporter rather fast. She deviateed from party lines and you all slipped out your daggers from your robes and ripped into her. I do not think it backstabbing. There ought to have been an implicit undersatnding that the exact opposite of doing what you all are doing (backing the person rather than the opinion) is refusing to back the person rather than the opinion. She did that and was exited quite decisively but not before daggers coming out and her being ripped on. They were all in front and ought to have been expected for her horrendous transgression. :lol:

I find it interesting too that when you all do it was in terms of not what she was saying buthow could she say it to a friend. It is bullshit. Back an opinion or defend an opinoon NOT a person.

So your turn now Squiddy show me very clearly the backstabbing conspiracy. You backed this up by saying I had chosen these words after having voiced them yourself, so show. No?

You do not need to enlighten me Squiddy. I see what is happenning and what you said. Bint started voicing a difference of opinion and was ripped into and cast aside decisively. Nothing more or nothing less. None of this is news to me. Regardless to what you think about cliques or not Squiddy you are in a clique now and acting as a member of the clique.

Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 02, 2011, 03:42:48 PM
I happily admit to quote mining because I back my shit up. As for the rest...desperate flailing fiction.

Quote mining is a dishonest argumentation technique where you take a persons words out of context to make them sound like they said something they didn't.

'Thanks for admitting to the dishonesty that you engage in.   :hahaha:

Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on December 02, 2011, 03:53:56 PM
Did I say there was a conspiracy to stab Bint in the back Squid? Anywhere? No. Stop misrepresented what I said with what you would have like me to say then .
That’s right never mentioned a conspiracy nor backstabbing.



Is it my opinion and is it even what I said? No on both accounts so why are you bullshitting Squiddy?
Callaway I think it is a shame too.

So what exactly DID you mean by this?

You can back each other regardless of what opinion is stated and in the event that you have a difference of opinion with a member or two, you all can bring out the daggers like you all did with Bint.

You seem convinced we all turned on Bint due to her disagreeing with Butterflies , frankly that's bullshit.

Let me enlighten you on what happened.


Butterflies and Bint had their argument , I kept out of it , so did Adam , Adam made a jokey post in Bint's thread Bint snapped and accused him of siding against her or some nonsense like that , so I had to sit back and watch as two of my friends were being unfairly slated by Bint but I kept quiet anyway I do not involve myself in fights between friends unless someone is needed to resolve it.

I created this smiley: Pyraxis , and Bint got pissed off and turned on me as she did with Butterflies and Adam.

How Adam and Butterflies act towards others is there own decision as it is with Schleed , Bodie and Scrap, I disagreed with what Odeon said about Butterflies and so did Bodie yet you are under the impression I do this to "back a party member".

I'm not one for cliques never have been , never will , if I react on something I react on it because I wish to , what others do is up to them, but feel free to keep making horribly incorrect assumptions about me.  :lol:

Yes, I will and then you can show me where this announced Backstabbing conspiracy and why I chose such words.

Binty was in your clique and she went from vocal party supporter to ex-vocal party supporter rather fast. She deviateed from party lines and you all slipped out your daggers from your robes and ripped into her. I do not think it backstabbing. There ought to have been an implicit undersatnding that the exact opposite of doing what you all are doing (backing the person rather than the opinion) is refusing to back the person rather than the opinion. She did that and was exited quite decisively but not before daggers coming out and her being ripped on. They were all in front and ought to have been expected for her horrendous transgression. :lol:

I find it interesting too that when you all do it was in terms of not what she was saying buthow could she say it to a friend. It is bullshit. Back an opinion or defend an opinoon NOT a person.

So your turn now Squiddy show me very clearly the backstabbing conspiracy. You backed this up by saying I had chosen these words after having voiced them yourself, so show. No?

You do not need to enlighten me Squiddy. I see what is happenning and what you said. Bint started voicing a difference of opinion and was ripped into and cast aside decisively. Nothing more or nothing less. None of this is news to me. Regardless to what you think about cliques or not Squiddy you are in a clique now and acting as a member of the clique.

You're clearly projecting what you want to be true onto this.

If you consider me to be in a clique , cool , I know I'm not and have not acted in the way you've described so I'm not particularly bothered.

and this is the last post I'm making on the subject.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 02, 2011, 04:26:48 PM
Squiddy is right about the Binty issue.

Me and Binty had a minor argument over an even more trivial issue.

Squid and Adam did not fall out with her for disagreeing with me. She fell out with them for fuck knows what reason.

My argument with Bint was minor. I wouldnt have wanted anyone to fall out with her because she argued with me.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 02, 2011, 04:36:40 PM
Yes none of this shit is true and nor do you believe it but it is said anyhow.
ZOMG!!! Sir Les is a telepath who can read our mindzz Ooooh Noooeeess!!!  :GA:
Nope. Common sense. I know such insight may astound you though Scrap.

This is Sir Les' definition of "backing his shit up".  :hahaha:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on December 02, 2011, 04:54:52 PM
Yes, Bint fell out with US. not the other wy round. If you read my posts to her, I think you'll see I was actually very decent towards her when she initially started having a go at me.

She also wasn't "exited" from any clique. If there was a clique in the first place then she left it herself. We certainly didn't kick her out and actually were hoping that she was ok at first, until she started getting nasty
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 02, 2011, 05:16:06 PM
Well Im not too sure about how things were around here in the past but right now it looks like you've divided into two cliques and are arguing against each other and I thought that kind of thing was what you were trying  to avoid when you signed up here

Nah, just the usual drama.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 02, 2011, 05:19:57 PM
Scrap misrepresents what I said. Adam agrees and Scrap Agrees with Adam’s agreement of something that he misrepresented.  Party lines are backed.

Fucking priceless.

THIS is fucking priceless.

Coming from the King of Straw-man arguments, quote-mining, misrepresentations and other red herrings.

:LMAO:

I notice that you don't actually argue, you attempt to discredit him using insults.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 02, 2011, 05:22:35 PM
I happily admit to quote mining because I back my shit up. As for the rest...desperate flailing fiction.

Quote mining is a dishonest argumentation technique where you take a persons words out of context to make them sound like they said something they didn't.

'Thanks for admitting to the dishonesty that you engage in.   :hahaha:

Quote mining here is simply answering each point, which Sir Les has done when so required. If you disagree, show where you think he errs instead of using smokescreens.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 02, 2011, 05:25:38 PM
Yes, Bint fell out with US. not the other wy round. If you read my posts to her, I think you'll see I was actually very decent towards her when she initially started having a go at me.

She also wasn't "exited" from any clique. If there was a clique in the first place then she left it herself. We certainly didn't kick her out and actually were hoping that she was ok at first, until she started getting nasty

:-\

Read it a bit differently. I think she was genuinely upset about the way Butterflies derailed her thread, not the derailing itself. That is what she said, didn't she?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on December 02, 2011, 05:29:31 PM
Yes, Bint fell out with US. not the other wy round. If you read my posts to her, I think you'll see I was actually very decent towards her when she initially started having a go at me.

She also wasn't "exited" from any clique. If there was a clique in the first place then she left it herself. We certainly didn't kick her out and actually were hoping that she was ok at first, until she started getting nasty

:-\

Read it a bit differently. I think she was genuinely upset about the way Butterflies derailed her thread, not the derailing itself. That is what she said, didn't she?

What does that have to do with my post? The reason she was pissed off I mean
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 02, 2011, 06:15:35 PM
You said "we" repeatedly, which I read as including Butterflies, and I thought she was at the centre of her objections.

I didn't think you were hostile, Adam. IMO you were being decent, just as you said.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on December 02, 2011, 06:44:19 PM
Ah ok I get what you mean now. nah I was talking about me and squiddy there, as it seemed to be us that Les was saying had took the daggers out as soon as Bint disagreed with us or something, which definitely wasn't the case (we were both actually concerned about her getting how she used to be when we first saw that she seemed emotional etc)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on December 02, 2011, 06:48:31 PM
Ah ok I get what you mean now. nah I was talking about me and squiddy there, as it seemed to be us that Les was saying had took the daggers out as soon as Bint disagreed with us or something, which definitely wasn't the case (we were both actually concerned about her getting how she used to be when we first saw that she seemed emotional etc)

 :agreed:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on December 02, 2011, 06:50:16 PM
If you guys were nothing but concerned, how come it kept getting worse and worse?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on December 02, 2011, 06:56:54 PM
All I can say is about the stuff between me and binty. That got worse because she misinterpreted what I was saying as me having a dig. When actually I wasn;t. I knew there was a big risk she would see it like that, but thought I hd a duty as a "friend" to point out what I thought (obviously wrongly) would help her.

I don't see how what I said could be seen as an insult tbh. It might not have been what she wanted to hear, but it was meant with good intentions. It would have been a lot easier for me to either say nothign at all, or (if I didn't give a shit about her or was a crap friend, like she says), then for me to troll her mercilessly. I chose to try and help her see that she was fallign back into her old ways of reacting to shit.

It backfired on ME, but actually maybe it did work in the end, as she seemed to have brightened up a bit the next day instead of getting really emotional all over the board like I thoguht she was going towards. And she also seems to be taking a break from here instead of deleting her account or having a meltdown. Both of those things were what I was worried she was going towards and what I was actaully genuinely trying to steer her away from

I think I do know her quite well (despite the fact that I'm sure she'd claim I don't if she reads this) and, far from being an ass and making things worse for her, I think I actually fucked MYSELF over trying to help her

Maybe the only people who'll agree with me here are those in my "clique"  :dunno:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on December 02, 2011, 06:59:28 PM
If you guys were nothing but concerned, how come it kept getting worse and worse?

Possibly because there were a few people stoking the fire, on both sides.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on December 02, 2011, 07:00:31 PM
That's true. It's not like everything depended on how me and squiddy react. Everyone involved had an impact on it "getting worse and worse", and good intentions don't always lead to good outcomes
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on December 02, 2011, 07:03:42 PM
You're only saying that because you're in the same clique as me.  :tickle:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on December 02, 2011, 07:09:03 PM
See now I'm stuck between wanting to defend myself from that accusation, and needing to agree with you because you're in my clique :emosad:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on December 02, 2011, 07:09:57 PM
You two post too fast.  :razz:

I don't think everything depended on Squidthing or Adam either.

My point was more that well-meaning concern doesn't always help. After a certain point it just stokes the fire like everything else. But Adam already said that it backfired on him.

I hope she comes back before too long.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on December 02, 2011, 07:13:11 PM
See now I'm stuck between wanting to defend myself from that accusation, and needing to agree with you because you're in my clique :emosad:

Adam that is bullshit and you know it and I shall explain it like this:

*500 essays later*













Ur gay  :tard:


You two post too fast.  :razz:

I don't think everything depended on Squidthing or Adam either.

My point was more that well-meaning concern doesn't always help. After a certain point it just stokes the fire like everything else. But Adam already said that it backfired on him.

I hope she comes back before too long.

I'll admit I did rip into Binty , not because she disagreed with butterflies though , but because frankly I thought she acted like an arse with how she treated me very much like a disposable friend.

As for the point on concern , I think you're right there.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on December 02, 2011, 07:14:15 PM

My point was more that well-meaning concern doesn't always help.

Agreed. I didn't realise that was what you were saying.

I thoguht the right thing to do was to risk that though. Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't. In the short term it obviously didnt lol
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on December 02, 2011, 07:25:13 PM
This drama needs a theme song.

Barry Lyndon Original Sound Track (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEnaZlp2zjY#)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on December 02, 2011, 07:26:59 PM
 :lol:

Excellent choice
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on December 02, 2011, 07:50:12 PM
This drama needs a theme song.

Barry Lyndon Original Sound Track (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEnaZlp2zjY#)

 :laugh:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: earthboundmisfit on December 02, 2011, 09:01:14 PM


Desperation is a stinky cologne Scrap.


stinky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGylgjSiEOQ#ws)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 02, 2011, 09:15:17 PM


Desperation is a stinky cologne Scrap.


stinky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGylgjSiEOQ#ws)

Wondered if anyone would get the reference :)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 02, 2011, 09:39:25 PM
Scrap misrepresents what I said. Adam agrees and Scrap Agrees with Adam’s agreement of something that he misrepresented.  Party lines are backed.

Fucking priceless.

THIS is fucking priceless.

Coming from the King of Straw-man arguments, quote-mining, misrepresentations and other red herrings.

:LMAO:

I notice that you don't actually argue, you attempt to discredit him using insults.

But you failed to notice that Sir Les was the one who started trying to discredit me with insults.

Selective vision??
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 02, 2011, 09:47:05 PM
I happily admit to quote mining because I back my shit up. As for the rest...desperate flailing fiction.

Quote mining is a dishonest argumentation technique where you take a persons words out of context to make them sound like they said something they didn't.

'Thanks for admitting to the dishonesty that you engage in.   :hahaha:

Quote mining here is simply answering each point, which Sir Les has done when so required.

On the contrary. I've made several posts replying to Les with several paragraphs. Does he reply to all (or even most) of my points? No, he picks out one or two lines out of context, then spends a dozen paragrapgs making straw-man and red-herring arguments and generally engaging in mis-direction.

It's why I don't bother replying to his posts anymore. There's no actual content to reply to.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 02, 2011, 09:54:03 PM


Desperation is a stinky cologne Scrap.


stinky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGylgjSiEOQ#ws)

Wondered if anyone would get the reference :)

I got the reference and I also got the fact you were just projecting.

Keep up the good work Les.  :thumbup:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 02, 2011, 10:02:26 PM
I have to admit, when I argue with Les, he has a habit of just picking up on minor small point, that often has nothing to do with the issue, and just shouts prove it over and over again.

I can't help feeling he would be a total grammer nazi, if he had a better grasp of proper grammer.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 02, 2011, 10:15:36 PM
I have to admit, when I argue with Les, he has a habit of just picking up on minor small point, that often has nothing to do with the issue, and just shouts prove it over and over again.

I can't help feeling he would be a total grammer nazi, if he had a better grasp of proper grammer.

 :agreed:

Misdirecting arguments seems to be his main tactic.

EDIT: Oooooooohh Nooooooooeeess!!! I just joined your clique!   :GA:  :GA:  :GA:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 02, 2011, 11:31:56 PM
I have to admit, when I argue with Les, he has a habit of just picking up on minor small point, that often has nothing to do with the issue, and just shouts prove it over and over again.

I can't help feeling he would be a total grammer nazi, if he had a better grasp of proper grammer.

Yup my spelling sucks and so does my grammar.

You did mean "grammar" didn't you, not "grammer"?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/grammar (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/grammar)

Probably best neither of us get into discussing each other's grammar, spelling, syntax or posting styles. It would only expose and embarass us both in how terrible we are in this regard, and kind of looks like thrashing around flinging mud unnecessarily.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 02, 2011, 11:57:04 PM
I happily admit to quote mining because I back my shit up. As for the rest...desperate flailing fiction.

Quote mining is a dishonest argumentation technique where you take a persons words out of context to make them sound like they said something they didn't.

'Thanks for admitting to the dishonesty that you engage in.   :hahaha:
Ah that is what it meant. I am not an authority on this. I thought you were inferring mining previous posts and referencing them to make a reply.
You were talking about using the quotes out of context to make it seem that you were saying something you were not and furthermore that this was dishonest. In that case I don’t do this but I think I know someone who does (or at least has).
I have been sleeping with my girlfriend for the last 3 months and things are cool. But now all of a sudden I have a vague suspicion that she has a penis.

Is this happening to you often?

Is what happening to “me” often
So it makes as much sense as you saying"I have been sleeping with my girlfriend for the last 3 months and things are cool. But now all of a sudden I have a vague suspicion that she has a penis"

If so, then I suggest reconsidering which drinking establishments you choose to frequent.
*Protip. Always check for the Adams Apple. If it's got the apple, you don't wanna grapple.
I suggest that your suggestion is either a case of inability to comprehend, or an inability to read.

Surely it is not another case of you rattling off meaningless misrepresented fiction again?

But hey from your encyclopedic knowledge of all things sexual and vast experience in such matters, please keep the sexual protips coming (pun, get it?…of course you do)

That definition you gave about what quote-mining is seemed to be what Butterflies was doing.
Maybe you and she need to talk about the merits of such a practice and how dishonest it is?
In the meantime perhaps keeping it real could make an interesting change, the alternative is getting you nowhere fast.

You're clearly projecting what you want to be true onto this.

If you consider me to be in a clique , cool , I know I'm not and have not acted in the way you've described so I'm not particularly bothered.

and this is the last post I'm making on the subject.

No I do not think you would be bothered. I was mainly trying to find out where exactly I had said Bint was conspired against to be backstabbed


Since the moment we all conspired to stab Bint in the back apparently.  :lol:
and why you would say this and further why you would tell Callaway

I find it funny Sir Les chose to word it like that , but meh if that's his opinion so be it.

Being that I did not (and when asked what I meant I answered) and when asked to return the favour you tell me it is the last you are going to say on the matter (without actually addressing it at all), it kinda says that you really had no cause to say it in the first place. Right? Sorry, you are not answering any further questions.

Yes none of this shit is true and nor do you believe it but it is said anyhow.
ZOMG!!! Sir Les is a telepath who can read our mindzz Ooooh Noooeeess!!!  :GA:
Nope. Common sense. I know such insight may astound you though Scrap.

This is Sir Les' definition of "backing his shit up".  :hahaha:

This was supposed to be backed up?   :tard:

OK I will prove I am not a telepath. Pick a number between 1 and 100. Answer “69”

Oh fuck….maybe I am.  :GA:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 03, 2011, 12:17:22 AM

I happily admit to quote mining because I back my shit up. As for the rest...desperate flailing fiction.

Quote mining is a dishonest argumentation technique where you take a persons words out of context to make them sound like they said something they didn't.

'Thanks for admitting to the dishonesty that you engage in.   :hahaha:

Quote mining here is simply answering each point, which Sir Les has done when so required.

On the contrary. I've made several posts replying to Les with several paragraphs. Does he reply to all (or even most) of my points? No, he picks out one or two lines out of context, then spends a dozen paragrapgs making straw-man and red-herring arguments and generally engaging in mis-direction.

It's why I don't bother replying to his posts anymore. There's no actual content to reply to.

But you do reply Scrap. For all the talk of Les's monologues, I am replying to what you say.
For all your implying that I am being underhanded in my reponses, i am being pretty explicit as to my opinions. Agreed upon or not I am putting them out there rather blatantly.
Perhaps if your arguments suffer so badly from examination, you need to make better arguments or stop replying. Perhaps you simply are better off not whinging when I do reply and call out your bullshit. I really don't care much either way. I like seeing your efforts to try to parrot me in that other thread. It was embarassingly funny.

I have to admit, when I argue with Les, he has a habit of just picking up on minor small point, that often has nothing to do with the issue, and just shouts prove it over and over again.

You are good at nuances, Butterflies.
Something insinuated subtlely. You are very good at it.
These "minor points" when not addressed have a nasty habit to give rise to an acceptance of an idea not expressed explicitly but implicitly. It is a sneaky way of saying without saying and implying without commiting to an idea. I am reasonable good at picking up on such nuances. I will always address and bring them out in the open.
Better that way. Instead of something being loaded with many such meanings or contexts we get to see exactly what you did or did not mean.
I do not consider it a fault in the slightest to pick up on these minor points.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on December 03, 2011, 12:23:31 AM
    “Hey there you young whipper snapper! Did I ever tell you the story of my first ramble? I remember my first ramble. It was back in the summer of sixty-four, or sunny-year-mas as we called summer at the time. Anyway, I was rambling about my hat to Neil Armstrong, who said he had been on the moon but I knew it was fake and they made simulated-y it inna lab or Hollywood somewhere. I was once in a lab/Hollywood. There was this family trip... Oh, anyway, back to the subject -have I ever told you about the many ways people pronounce '/' while talking? Oddly, those people who record them, as in quotes, see, always transcribe- err... write, them '/', even if they're bizzarely not similar, like / or / or / or... I knew another sentence I made that went like that, being "punctuation or punctuation or..." once. Funny how it happened. It was just like this, see...”
    ~ Rambling Old Man on Rambling

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Pointless_Rambling (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Pointless_Rambling)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 03, 2011, 12:50:11 AM
    “Hey there you young whipper snapper! Did I ever tell you the story of my first ramble? I remember my first ramble. It was back in the summer of sixty-four, or sunny-year-mas as we called summer at the time. Anyway, I was rambling about my hat to Neil Armstrong, who said he had been on the moon but I knew it was fake and they made simulated-y it inna lab or Hollywood somewhere. I was once in a lab/Hollywood. There was this family trip... Oh, anyway, back to the subject -have I ever told you about the many ways people pronounce '/' while talking? Oddly, those people who record them, as in quotes, see, always transcribe- err... write, them '/', even if they're bizzarely not similar, like / or / or / or... I knew another sentence I made that went like that, being "punctuation or punctuation or..." once. Funny how it happened. It was just like this, see...”
    ~ Rambling Old Man on Rambling

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Pointless_Rambling (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Pointless_Rambling)

Weak, Adam. Grampa Simpson does it so much better

"In 1957 I saw him turn turn the Secretary of Agriculture into the Secretary of the Interior. It was hell on their wives, but it sure brought down corn prices. Built a house out of corn. It was the worst home I ever owed? when it got really hot it smelled like Frito's."
Read more: http://www.tvfanatic.com/quotes/characters/grandpa-simpson/#ixzz1fS2GRS3J (http://www.tvfanatic.com/quotes/characters/grandpa-simpson/#ixzz1fS2GRS3J)



"Grampa: One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere, like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Give me five bees for a quarter," you'd say. Now, where were we? Oh yeah, the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones.."
Read more: http://www.tvfanatic.com/quotes/characters/grandpa-simpson/page-8.html#ixzz1fS4cqElR (http://www.tvfanatic.com/quotes/characters/grandpa-simpson/page-8.html#ixzz1fS4cqElR)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 03, 2011, 06:00:59 AM
I happily admit to quote mining because I back my shit up. As for the rest...desperate flailing fiction.

Quote mining is a dishonest argumentation technique where you take a persons words out of context to make them sound like they said something they didn't.

'Thanks for admitting to the dishonesty that you engage in.   :hahaha:

Quote mining here is simply answering each point, which Sir Les has done when so required.

On the contrary. I've made several posts replying to Les with several paragraphs. Does he reply to all (or even most) of my points? No, he picks out one or two lines out of context, then spends a dozen paragrapgs making straw-man and red-herring arguments and generally engaging in mis-direction.

It's why I don't bother replying to his posts anymore. There's no actual content to reply to.

For quite some time you have been saying he uses strawman and red herring arguments and whatnot, but you haven't actually shown where. Saying doesn't make it so. The same with your claiming that you're only parroting him.

Yet you keep replying.

Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 04, 2011, 12:13:01 PM
....Yet you keep replying.

Nope. I've made my points and I don't feel like dragging this shit out. I don't want to participate in the bitchfest.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Parts on December 04, 2011, 12:15:17 PM
 :include:
(http://dudemandude.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/boobs.jpg)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 04, 2011, 12:25:03 PM
....Yet you keep replying.

Nope. I've made my points and I don't feel like dragging this shit out. I don't want to participate in the bitchfest.

You still have that strawman and red herring claims to back up, if you ask me.

Oh well.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 04, 2011, 03:20:08 PM
....Yet you keep replying.

Nope. I've made my points and I don't feel like dragging this shit out. I don't want to participate in the bitchfest.

You still have that strawman and red herring claims to back up, if you ask me.

Oh well.

No for 2 reasons. 1) that'd continue the bitchfest, and 2) Sir Les didn't back up any of his shit either.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 04, 2011, 05:21:23 PM
....Yet you keep replying.

Nope. I've made my points and I don't feel like dragging this shit out. I don't want to participate in the bitchfest.

You still have that strawman and red herring claims to back up, if you ask me.

Oh well.

And you still haven't told me what I've done to Pandora that was so terrible that you needed to attempt to whip the site into complete moral outrage.

Oh well.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 05, 2011, 12:51:42 AM
....Yet you keep replying.

Nope. I've made my points and I don't feel like dragging this shit out. I don't want to participate in the bitchfest.

You still have that strawman and red herring claims to back up, if you ask me.

Oh well.

No for 2 reasons. 1) that'd continue the bitchfest, and 2) Sir Les didn't back up any of his shit either.

Sure i did. You call this fillabuster and such. I call it making rather descriptive and extensive reasoning as to why I think what I think. You can't or don't want to see what I say, and that doesn't bother me at all.


....Yet you keep replying.

Nope. I've made my points and I don't feel like dragging this shit out. I don't want to participate in the bitchfest.

You still have that strawman and red herring claims to back up, if you ask me.

Oh well.

And you still haven't told me what I've done to Pandora that was so terrible that you needed to attempt to whip the site into complete moral outrage.

Oh well.

"Complete moral outrage"? isn't that a bit much....either to expect that he was "completely outraged" rather than disagreed with you (much in the way you try to say I "shout" stuff)? All nuances as I say - you call them minor points. Neither was he trying to "whip" the forum into moral outrage. He was just stating his views publicly. Why constantly misrepresent things, and call it like it isn't?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 05, 2011, 01:05:12 AM
....Yet you keep replying.

Nope. I've made my points and I don't feel like dragging this shit out. I don't want to participate in the bitchfest.

You still have that strawman and red herring claims to back up, if you ask me.

Oh well.

And you still haven't told me what I've done to Pandora that was so terrible that you needed to attempt to whip the site into complete moral outrage.

Oh well.

I was happy to stop this, but seeing that you want to continue...

Yes I have. Both me and Sir Les, actually. If you don't understand our points, that is not my problem. As for "whipping the site into moral outrage" that's sort of cute. And a strawman, but I'm sure you knew it already.

Want to start up this whole mess again, Butterflies?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 07:47:39 AM
@Odeon. I wasnt aware that these were yours and Les' shared views. I was kinda just hoping for your view.

Not looking to start anything up. You appeared to try and whip up the site against me yo teach me some kind of lesson. You must think I done something terrible to Pandora. I still dont have a clue what Ive done, and Im just asking you to tell me, and to explain what was so bad that you appeared to try and hound a girl not even half your age from the site.

Im not looking for reams of text. Just telling me what Ive done will do. Im not even askng you to trail through weeks of posts to back anything up. Just tell me what Ive done, and why it merrited your actions.
 
This is a question for Odeon, so Im not really looking for Les' opinions here.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 05, 2011, 08:22:29 AM
Protip: If you are simply looking for an explanation without starting anything up, "whip the site into complete moral outrage" is probably not the phrase you are looking for.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: midlifeaspie on December 05, 2011, 09:53:50 AM
Oh good!  This is still going on.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 05, 2011, 10:32:24 AM
No it's not. I have no intention of starting it up again.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 01:15:55 PM
Protip: If you are simply looking for an explanation without starting anything up, "whip the site into complete moral outrage" is probably not the phrase you are looking for.

OK fair enough.

I'm going to try and speak to you in good faith here.

I had respect for you, and I also liked you. You started attacking me for something that you believe I have done. Apart from using Pandora to get a reaction from TCO, who was also doing the same thing to me, I genuinely have no idea what I'm supposed to have done wrong.

I am not looking to start up an argument. I am just looking for an explaination. I don't expect us to agree on the moral issues, but I see no reason for us to disagree on the facts, which are on this board, and on FB for everyone to see.


You claim that you have already explained your POV, but you haven't done it very well.
Callaway, who I'm sure you have the utmost respect for, does not appear to have fully understood the accusations either. I gather she read the thread, and then made the comment that I hadn't went onto FB to attack Pandora, but after Pandora attacked Bod, all bets were off. Callaway appeared to believe that you were accusing me of attacking Pandora on FB. I have never attacked her on FB. I also got the impression that you were accusing me of attacking her on FB.

You appear to have suggested that you were so upset because Pandora was collateral damage.
By that logic, TCO was a willing combatant, but you then appeared to be attacking me for something I done to TCO.


In short. I do not have a clue what I really stand accused of. I have no idea if I am guilty or not.
You clearly believe I have done something really bad. Now that the drama is hopefully over, I am simply asking you to let me know what you believe I have done.

I am not looking for you to prove that I'm a bad person. I'm sure if you tried, you could pull out plenty of quotes of me doing bad things. We all know I can be bad.
I simply would like to know what I done to Pandora that justified your reaction.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 05, 2011, 03:47:19 PM
Protip: If you are simply looking for an explanation without starting anything up, "whip the site into complete moral outrage" is probably not the phrase you are looking for.

OK fair enough.

I'm going to try and speak to you in good faith here.

I had respect for you, and I also liked you. You started attacking me for something that you believe I have done. Apart from using Pandora to get a reaction from TCO, who was also doing the same thing to me, I genuinely have no idea what I'm supposed to have done wrong.

I am not looking to start up an argument. I am just looking for an explaination. I don't expect us to agree on the moral issues, but I see no reason for us to disagree on the facts, which are on this board, and on FB for everyone to see.


You claim that you have already explained your POV, but you haven't done it very well.
Callaway, who I'm sure you have the utmost respect for, does not appear to have fully understood the accusations either. I gather she read the thread, and then made the comment that I hadn't went onto FB to attack Pandora, but after Pandora attacked Bod, all bets were off. Callaway appeared to believe that you were accusing me of attacking Pandora on FB. I have never attacked her on FB. I also got the impression that you were accusing me of attacking her on FB.

You appear to have suggested that you were so upset because Pandora was collateral damage.
By that logic, TCO was a willing combatant, but you then appeared to be attacking me for something I done to TCO.


In short. I do not have a clue what I really stand accused of. I have no idea if I am guilty or not.
You clearly believe I have done something really bad. Now that the drama is hopefully over, I am simply asking you to let me know what you believe I have done.

I am not looking for you to prove that I'm a bad person. I'm sure if you tried, you could pull out plenty of quotes of me doing bad things. We all know I can be bad.
I simply would like to know what I done to Pandora that justified your reaction.

Does this constitute an essay to you? Essays are what exactly?

Is Odeon "tryingto whip the site up against you" (as you agais try to imply) or is he just sharing his view publicly and disagreeing with your behaviour? You keep saying it so I am asking why are you saying it. Where too is this moral outrage?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 04:02:12 PM
@Les. No. Odeon is not currently doing anything.

That is why I felt it was a good idea to try and find out, in a civil manner what Odeon felt that I done to Pandora that merrited his response.
Im not looking to argue with him. I just want him to help me understand what I done.

Im sure you would be able to tell me why you have an issue with me, but for now at least, Im only looking for Odeon to answer the question.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 05, 2011, 04:07:57 PM
@Les. No. Odeon is not currently doing anything.

That is why I felt it was a good idea to try and find out, in a civil manner what Odeon felt that I done to Pandora that merrited his response.
Im not looking to argue with him. I just want him to help me understand what I done.

Im sure you would be able to tell me why you have an issue with me, but for now at least, Im only looking for Odeon to answer the question.

Currently...or even "ever" tried to whip the site innto moral outrage" or "ever" "try and whip up the site against me yo teach me some kind of lesson".
He does not do it currently, and indeed he has not ever done it. You throw it out there though. He disagreed with you. He was not trying to turn the site against you nor was "completely morally outraged", nor was "policing the site" nor any of the other over exaggerated misrepresentations you have made. Why are you still makling them?
 
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 05, 2011, 04:10:45 PM
OK. As you say, in good faith. Please know that I don't want to start anything, either, because what I'm going to write here is not going to sound very nice. Also, I'm not going for the exact time frames because I can't be bothered to look up every quote, OK? But here's the gist of the whole thing how I saw it and as it pertains to you.

And this is going to be long, so I apologise in advance.

When you first brought up Pandora (as in, insulted her), it was in a context with heated emotions and a TCO that was being a cunt and having a meltdown of epic proportions. He has a history of those things so no biggie, but he did produce some really nasty language, insulting just about everything in sight. You responded in kind. No biggie either.

(I have been there myself with TCO, btw. Lots of foul language, sure, but I can't recall insulting anyone but him, and I eventually contacted him via email and managed to calm things down.)

When you were called out by Sir Les, your reaction was what made me react. He told you his reasons and basically suggested the decent thing for you to do, and you went back and forth with it a few times but I could see no regret from you, nothing that showed that you thought an apology (to Pandora) was in any way warranted. At first I think you made it clear that you had done nothing wrong but later you agreed that it might have been a bad thing but no apology was necessary.

To no small part, you said then, just as you do now, because TCO had said worse things. And he had, a lot worse. But that's a schoolyard argument and I had thought you smarter than that. And actually, in that thread and elsewhere, it was clear that you are, you just didn't care and that made you look really bad. From having had the moral upper hand, you now seemed downright nasty, someone who seemed to be willing to go just a step or two further, and that was what made me react.

And then you called Sir Les out and to me that made you look nastier still. From not appearing to understand why you should apologise to a calculated attempt at rewriting the whole thing.

Before TCO had returned from his self-imposed ban, people were already making sure that there would be no cooling down here. Then, just as earlier and just as during what followed here and at FB, IMO you went a little bit further than others, just a little nastier, subtly but perceptibly, and again, there was no regret.

Of course I was already annoyed and possibly looking for that specific kind of behaviour but I though it was there.

Thing is, TCO was unstable when he returned, an easy target, and you all made it worse very quickly. He may have had it coming but he was ganged up on and I think the sentiment was in the lines of "he's going to have a meltdown sooner or later anyway, so why wait?" He was, but this particular drama was more like taking candy from a 5-yo. You all knew what was going to happen. That is what I meant when I said he was an "unworthy" target.

Once Pandora had seemed to reply at FB she was made a legitimate target and a rewrite seemed to take place to make it sound as if she had been in an active participant from the start. Goalposts were shifted and strawmen invented. This is from my POV, of course, how I saw it, but remember that you did ask.

Yes, several people joined the so-called posse, but they all had another think about it when all this was pointed out. Everyone but you, that is. There was a willingness to reconsider and to reflect. You, however, made it clear that you saw no reason to. "Yes, it was bad, BUT..."

That same behaviour I think you displayed when Bint called you out. While others were derailing a thread, you were just a bit nastier, pushing things just a little more. To me it looked like the only reason you did it was because you could.

I don't believe you are bad, Butterflies, but I don't understand this aspect of your behaviour. My mum taught me that if two people fight, you can practically never just blame one of them. Both are to blame. Most people seem to acknowledge this--they are willing to reconsider and admit that sure, they were wrong, too, and say sorry--but not you.

And that is the gist of it. So you see, it is as with mostly anything, it is not just one thing, it is several things combined over time.

I hope I managed better this time.

[Edited for clarity]
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 04:22:42 PM
@Odeon. Yes. That is a lot clearer, so thanks.
Some of what you write is very true, and some of it isnt.
It does, for the first time, give me the basis for understanding your POV.

Im in the bath, posting from my phone, but when I get out I'll adress the points you have made, both the ones you are right about, and the ones you are wrong about.

Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 05, 2011, 04:33:39 PM
OK. I was unsure if I should reply at all but it bothered me that maybe I hadn't been clear after all, earlier, and thought you deserved another attempt.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 05:51:20 PM
I'll try and address the points in order. Once again, this will be an essay, so sorry.


When Les called me out over saying to Steve that Pandora was rancid: IMO it was a small insult, aimed at someone I detest(Steve). Yes it was clearly a bit wrong, but nothing I felt the need to apologize over. It was only when it got back to Pandora that I was bothered by it. I wouldn't want, or need Steve to apologize for wishing my family dead. IMO both insults are simply just meaningless insults, thrown out to attempt to wind up the opponent. I dislike Steve, but not because of any of the insults he threw at me.
Now that I have interacted with Pandora, I feel absolutely no remorse at what I have said.

I'm someone who is willing to go a step or to further: That is very true. I do have a fairly serious behaviour boundary issue. The same also applies to my sense of humour. It has affected me my whole life, from punching my head teacher to getting involved in fights against groups of people.
This is something that people have to accept if they are my friend. Sadly, it is unlikely to change anytime in the forseeable future, and TBH the only way I can control this issue is by going into a shell and not showing any personality.
I am sorry I'm like this, but there is nothing I can do about it.


I made a calculated attempt to rewrite things: No, it certainly was not calculated. IMO a callout is a way for someone to attack someone elses behaviour, and for the person who is called out, to defend their behaviour.
I thought Les' behaviour was shit, so I called him out. It made sense to me. Les calling out me was for him to attack my behaviour. Me calling him out was for me to attack his behaviour. It certainly wasn't nasty. Just my way of dealing with things, and also, I was "melting down" at the time. IIRC it was either the day, or the day before I called out Calavera for a minor issue, and then left the site.



I attacked TCO after his self-imposed exile: If we're speaking of the same self-imposed exile, then that is not true at all. I gave you my word that I would lay off Steve, as long as he did not attack me. As soon as he returned to the site, he started making attacks on me. I logged on to the site and saw that Steve was back, and that he had made several posts about me. I was well within my rights to attack him after that.


Before TCO had returned from his self-imposed ban, people were already making sure that there would be no cooling down here:  Perhaps, but I wasn't one of them. Remember, I had only just returned to the site after erm... leaving :-[ . When I returned, Steve had left. I doubt if iI even mentioned him until he returned and attacked me.



Steve was ganged up on: Maybe, but that wasn't really my fault. I attacked Steve because of my issues with him. Others may have jumped on the bandwagon. I am in no position to tell people that they can't fight Steve because I'm already fighting him.
A similar situation would be our recent argument. Pyraxis was pretty quick to jump on your bandwagon, even though she had no idea what was even going on. That isn't your fault, even though she was fighting on your side.



Once Pandora had seemed to reply at FB she was made a legitimate target: No. This is absolutely not true. I have never attacked Pandora on FB at all. I was a picture of civillity towards her on FB. I was well aware that any attack would be viewed badly by the people on the FB group, and I made sure that I never made any kind of attack on her. I pointed out her lies, and told people what Steve was really like. I did not say anything even remotely mean to her.
Here is a link to the group https://www.facebook.com/groups/5378779911/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/5378779911/) If you do a search for the posts of "Lorna Smith," you will see that I am telling the truth.
I did bitch about her on this site, and make fun of her here. On this occasion I'm amazed you think I went further than the rest of the people. After all, Binty was the only person who chose to post her personal pictures from FB.



Quote
Yes, several people joined the so-called posse, but they all had another think about it when all this was pointed out. Everyone but you, that is. There was a willingness to reconsider and to reflect. You, however, made it clear that you saw no reason to. "Yes, it was bad, BUT..."
That is because I never done anything to her on FB. I had no reason to reflect on anything.



Quote
That same behaviour I think you displayed when Bint called you out. While others were derailing a thread, you were just a bit nastier, pushing things just a little more. To me it looked like the only reason you did it was because you could.
There's slightly more to this, but I'm in no position to say what it is.
I got no pleasure from it, and would have prefered not to have been involved.



Quote
I don't believe you are bad, Butterflies, but I don't understand this aspect of your behaviour. My mum taught me that if two people fight, you can practically never just blame one of them. Both are to blame. Most people seem to acknowledge this--they are willing to reconsider and admit that sure, they were wrong, too, and say sorry--but not you.
I went to reasonable lengths during my argument with Steve to make clear to everyone that I was not the innocent party, and was equally to blame as him.
I was never in a fight with Pandora.

I don't see the point of apologizing to someone I detest, for something that I see as minor. IMO, apologizing is asking someone for forgiveness. If I do not desire forgiveness from that person, then I see no point in apologizing.
I am very aware of my faults, and am very quick to apologize when I am wrong, if I care about the persons views. I do not care for Steve or Pandoras views, or whether they forgive me, so I would not apologize to them. To do so would be fake IMO.




Feel free to question me on any of my answers.

Also, I would like you to think about 2 things for me.

1. Do you think your behaviour towards me over the 2 weeks was reasonable, especially when you could have put your views to me in a reasonable manner, and been responded to in a reasonable manner?

2. Do you want me to leave the site? I am not some feeble troll who gets a kick out of being unwelcome on a site. I know I won't be banned, so I'm giving you the option to politely say that I don't fit into your plans for this site. If so, I will be happy to request deletion, and never be seen here again.
TBH I would strongly prefer to be politely told to fuck off, than be tolerated on a site where I am not welcome.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Parts on December 05, 2011, 06:35:25 PM
This is getting very old and boring except the part about you posting from your phone while in the bath and without photos that is getting there too.  Dragging this out any longer or debating it any further is just    :wanker: . It's a disagreement people have them all the time move on all the posting in the world will not change anyone's opinion and believe me everyone knows where both sides stand.     
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 07:04:48 PM
This is getting very old and boring except the part about you posting from your phone while in the bath and without photos that is getting there too.  Dragging this out any longer or debating it any further is just    :wanker: . It's a disagreement people have them all the time move on all the posting in the world will not change anyone's opinion and believe me everyone knows where both sides stand.   

If you had spent the best part of two weeks having your decency as a person constantly called into question, would you not want to find out what you stood accused of?

I'm doing it in a perfectly civil and decent way, and I'm not creating drama, so I'm not really sure why you would have any problem with me and Odeon attempting to work out any problems we have.
Up until today, I have had no chance to respond to any accusations, because I did not know what the accusations were.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Parts on December 05, 2011, 07:27:02 PM
This is getting very old and boring except the part about you posting from your phone while in the bath and without photos that is getting there too.  Dragging this out any longer or debating it any further is just    :wanker: . It's a disagreement people have them all the time move on all the posting in the world will not change anyone's opinion and believe me everyone knows where both sides stand.   

If you had spent the best part of two weeks having your decency as a person constantly called into question, would you not want to find out what you stood accused of?

I'm doing it in a perfectly civil and decent way, and I'm not creating drama, so I'm not really sure why you would have any problem with me and Odeon attempting to work out any problems we have.
Up until today, I have had no chance to respond to any accusations, because I did not know what the accusations were.

I have no problems with it other than it's boring as fuck and it's sucking the fun out of posting.  I can not see how it took you this long or had to have it explained in such detail to figure it out as it was fairly clear from the start.     Re-engagement is a favored tactic of my kids and it drives me crazy.  Right, wrong,  good , bad it doesn't matter move on just because you two have disagreements does not mean you are not welcome here
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on December 05, 2011, 08:11:33 PM
All right, I'm going to answer this too.

1. Do you think your behaviour towards me over the 2 weeks was reasonable, especially when you could have put your views to me in a reasonable manner, and been responded to in a reasonable manner?

Yes, because I had no reason to believe that you would respond in a reasonable manner. At the point I challenged you, I was operating on limited information. It is what it is. The only way I could know how far you would take things is by seeing you do it.

2. Do you want me to leave the site? I am not some feeble troll who gets a kick out of being unwelcome on a site. I know I won't be banned, so I'm giving you the option to politely say that I don't fit into your plans for this site. If so, I will be happy to request deletion, and never be seen here again.
TBH I would strongly prefer to be politely told to fuck off, than be tolerated on a site where I am not welcome.

No. I say you are welcome here.

However. If you cross the line again and take things too far, to the point of people deciding to leave the site, or to the point of using the site as a staging ground against people who have already left, then that's my personal limit. From that point on, I'll work against you.

I don't want you to have to go into a shell and I wouldn't ask that. However I don't want to see your behavioral issues harm people who no longer agree to the terms of I².
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: P7PSP on December 05, 2011, 08:27:36 PM
You must think I done something terrible to Pandora. I still dont have a clue what Ive done, and Im just asking you to tell me, and to explain what was so bad that you appeared to try and hound a girl not even half your age from the site.
A girl?!  :o And not even half his age?! How dare odeon argue with the weaker sex. And a young one at that! ZOMG odeon! WTF is wrong with you thinking that young females should not be given special dispensation?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on December 05, 2011, 08:57:44 PM
Quote
From that point on, I'll work against you.

Aren't you the one who worked against Odeon and i2 for petty reasons? Aren't you the one that logged on from time to time simply to shit-stir rather than to defend?

I'm sorry, I said I was going to stay out of this drama but this reeks of hypocrisy. At least be honest about your agenda.


On an unrelated note, I can relate to butterflie's personality. I stir shit and act like a cunt most of the time, at times went much further than what she did to Pandora (ie. Penty, Bint, WP trolling). The weird thing is, most of you don't seem to care when I do this kind of shite, especially the more backstabbing stuff towards people you like, while she gets essays and callouts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like double standards to me.

So this is what I have to ask you, what makes her actions different from mine when to me they're similar?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 08:59:16 PM
This is getting very old and boring except the part about you posting from your phone while in the bath and without photos that is getting there too.  Dragging this out any longer or debating it any further is just    :wanker: . It's a disagreement people have them all the time move on all the posting in the world will not change anyone's opinion and believe me everyone knows where both sides stand.   

If you had spent the best part of two weeks having your decency as a person constantly called into question, would you not want to find out what you stood accused of?

I'm doing it in a perfectly civil and decent way, and I'm not creating drama, so I'm not really sure why you would have any problem with me and Odeon attempting to work out any problems we have.
Up until today, I have had no chance to respond to any accusations, because I did not know what the accusations were.

I have no problems with it other than it's boring as fuck and it's sucking the fun out of posting.  I can not see how it took you this long or had to have it explained in such detail to figure it out as it was fairly clear from the start.     Re-engagement is a favored tactic of my kids and it drives me crazy.  Right, wrong,  good , bad it doesn't matter move on just because you two have disagreements does not mean you are not welcome here

No it wasn't clear. A lot of stuff was said, and a lot of it made no sense. I've kinda explained why it was hard for me to understand a lot of the accusations, and to explain again would sound like I was attacking Odeon.

Whilst I appreciate that you probably have no desire to see me leave, I'm not so sure your feelings are unanimous.
This wasn't a disagreement I had with Odeon. It was slightly more than that. A lot of stuff has been said that goes well beyond a disagreement.



It's not a callout, really, just a little learning experience for Butterflies. I doubt Sir Les is interested in continuing his thread.


And the fuss I create now is nothing in comparison, but important, nevertheless. I think it's necessary for her to find out about how things are on the receiving end for a change.




Isn't as much fun to be on the receiving end, is it?

That's the thing, really. If her behaviour was to become the norm, I think we would all lose.

This isn't the words of someone having a simple disagreement. This is somebody who is making no secret of the fact that they are deliberately trying punish me to "teach me a lesson."
That goes well beyond a disagreement. If it's still Odeons goal to "teach me what it's like to be on the recieving end," then it would be much better all round if he just asked me to leave the site.

I'm unlikely to change as a person in the near future, and I have absolutely no intention of attempting to change myself to better fit in on an internet forum. This is who I am.

To begin with, I loved this site because I felt like my issues with taking things too far had found a place where they fitted in, and for a while they did. This part of my personality will not change. I will do it again and again, whether I want to or not.
If this is going to result in punishment by the owner of the site, then the decent thing to do would be to tell me politely that my behaviour does not fit in here. I would have no problem with that.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 09:00:41 PM
However I don't want to see your behavioral issues harm people who no longer agree to the terms of I².

What former members of intensity have I harmed?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 09:03:28 PM


Yes, because I had no reason to believe that you would respond in a reasonable manner. At the point I challenged you, I was operating on limited information. It is what it is. The only way I could know how far you would take things is by seeing you do it.


So you're saying that you had limited information, but you still decided to attack me for no reason to see how I would react.
That is beyond fucked-up. That is fucking deranged :thumbdn:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 05, 2011, 09:03:53 PM
@Les. No. Odeon is not currently doing anything.

That is why I felt it was a good idea to try and find out, in a civil manner what Odeon felt that I done to Pandora that merrited his response.
Im not looking to argue with him. I just want him to help me understand what I done.

Im sure you would be able to tell me why you have an issue with me, but for now at least, Im only looking for Odeon to answer the question.

Sir Les does a good job of butting in when you're not talking to him.

He needs the ahtenshun!  :tard:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 09:07:21 PM


However. If you cross the line again and take things too far, to the point of people deciding to leave the site,

Nobody decided to leave the site because of me, with the possible exception of Steve, and I would just be one of a large number of people he left because of. Half the site ended up fighting Steve.

Les never left the site, and I can't believe anybody actually believed his little walkout :facepalm2:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on December 05, 2011, 09:15:17 PM
So this is what I have to ask you, what makes her actions different from mine when to me they're similar?

By this point your reputation precedes you, so - correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see you get into it with people who really have no idea what you're like. You also don't have people tagging along after you, claiming you have impeccable character. I get the sense you'd rip them a new one if anybody tried it.  :LOL:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 09:18:08 PM
So this is what I have to ask you, what makes her actions different from mine when to me they're similar?

By this point your reputation precedes you, so - correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see you get into it with people who really have no idea what you're like. You also don't have people tagging along after you, claiming you have impeccable character. I get the sense you'd rip them a new one if anybody tried it.  :LOL:

Nobody in their right mind claims that I'm an impeccable character. They do rightly claim that I'm usually nice, and make no secret of my nasty side.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on December 05, 2011, 09:19:13 PM
What former members of intensity have I harmed?

TCO.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Calavera on December 05, 2011, 09:21:37 PM
That's unfair, Pyraxis.

TCO is responsible for the shit that he himself spread here, too.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 09:23:30 PM
What former members of intensity have I harmed?

TCO.

He chose to keep the fight going after leaving the site. He left the site, and immediately went onto the WP fb group, and started the fight all over again.
If an ex member of this site chooses to fight me, I have every right to fight back, and on this occasion, I barely fought back :dunno:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on December 05, 2011, 09:25:22 PM
So this is what I have to ask you, what makes her actions different from mine when to me they're similar?

By this point your reputation precedes you, so - correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see you get into it with people who really have no idea what you're like. You also don't have people tagging along after you, claiming you have impeccable character. I get the sense you'd rip them a new one if anybody tried it.  :LOL:

But nobody is claiming to be impeccable. Butterflies can be a right cunt and IMO I find it hilarious, if anything her "innocent" nature is just naivety rather than actual innocence. That said, she's more of "nice to people she likes, a bastard to people she hates" kind of person. :zoinks:

However, I would find you're a different story. You're very backhanded and not very upfront about your actions. I really don't know where to stand with you and I got that vibe from Bint etc. The kind of people I cannot trust. I fucked bint over for her bullshit because I couldn't keep a secret over her bullshit reasons for TOW, for example.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on December 05, 2011, 09:28:10 PM
So you're saying that you had limited information, but you still decided to attack me for no reason to see how I would react.
That is beyond fucked-up. That is fucking deranged :thumbdn:

Not for no reason. I had Sir Les' concerns about the site going downhill.

It would be deranged if I really did have no reason. If I were a sociopath. But I'm not, I'm an ordinary human being who understands that there are bad things in the world. I'd rather understand them up front than be caught off guard later.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on December 05, 2011, 09:31:46 PM
I would just be one of a large number of people he left because of. Half the site ended up fighting Steve.

TCO is responsible for the shit that he himself spread here, too.

True and true. If he were here right now and I thought there was a chance he'd actually understand what I was saying, I'd tell him the same damn thing. I don't think it's all Butterflies' fault by a long shot.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 09:33:09 PM
So this is what I have to ask you, what makes her actions different from mine when to me they're similar?

By this point your reputation precedes you, so - correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see you get into it with people who really have no idea what you're like. You also don't have people tagging along after you, claiming you have impeccable character. I get the sense you'd rip them a new one if anybody tried it.  :LOL:

But nobody is claiming to be impeccable. Butterflies can be a right cunt and IMO I find it hilarious, if anything her "innocent" nature is just naivety rather than actual innocence. That said, she's more of "nice to people she likes, a bastard to people she hates" kind of person. :zoinks:

However, I would find you're a different story. You're very backhanded and not very upfront about your actions. I really don't know where to stand with you and I got that vibe from Bint etc. The kind of people I cannot trust. I fucked bint over for her bullshit because I couldn't keep a secret over her bullshit reasons for TOW, for example.

I agree, and I do see a real underhanded side to Pyraxis. She admitted to deliberately goading me into a fight just because she heard bad stuff about me, and then she complains when I react, even going so far as attempting to get me kicked out of the EF.
She often tries to be nice to anyone who shows me any support, like what she did with you just now. I think she has accused me of being manipulative, despite the fact that being manipulative is one of the few bad personality traits I don't have.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on December 05, 2011, 09:37:16 PM
However, I would find you're a different story. You're very backhanded and not very upfront about your actions. I really don't know where to stand with you and I got that vibe from Bint etc. The kind of people I cannot trust. I fucked bint over for her bullshit because I couldn't keep a secret over her bullshit reasons for TOW, for example.

On the other hand, Bint makes perfect sense to me. It's just a matter of perspective, I think. I know I can be confusing but I did also say openly what I was doing. (Not going to repeat it all here because it was in the Elders forum, but we could take it up there if you want.)

What would it take for me to be trustworthy to you?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 09:37:23 PM
So you're saying that you had limited information, but you still decided to attack me for no reason to see how I would react.
That is beyond fucked-up. That is fucking deranged :thumbdn:

Not for no reason. I had Sir Les' concerns about the site going downhill.

It would be deranged if I really did have no reason. If I were a sociopath. But I'm not, I'm an ordinary human being who understands that there are bad things in the world. I'd rather understand them up front than be caught off guard later.

Les was more than likely using you. If not, then he was certainly speaking out of anger.

Going and attacking someone you do not know, just because someone who has just been in an argument with that person says they're bad is seriously fucked up. At best, it shows that you are a very naive and easily maipulated person.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on December 05, 2011, 09:39:26 PM
However, I would find you're a different story. You're very backhanded and not very upfront about your actions. I really don't know where to stand with you and I got that vibe from Bint etc. The kind of people I cannot trust. I fucked bint over for her bullshit because I couldn't keep a secret over her bullshit reasons for TOW, for example.

On the other hand, Bint makes perfect sense to me. It's just a matter of perspective, I think. I know I can be confusing but I did also say openly what I was doing. (Not going to repeat it all here because it was in the Elders forum, but we could take it up there if you want.)

What would it take for me to be trustworthy to you?

But you aren't open. You side with people you antagonise simply to shit stir and then act like it never acted, for one.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on December 05, 2011, 09:41:53 PM
But you aren't open. You side with people you antagonise simply to shit stir and then act like it never acted, for one.

 ???
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 09:43:45 PM
But you aren't open. You side with people you antagonise simply to shit stir and then act like it never acted, for one.

 ???

I would assume he meant happened
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on December 05, 2011, 09:46:04 PM
I agree, and I do see a real underhanded side to Pyraxis. She admitted to deliberately goading me into a fight just because she heard bad stuff about me, and then she complains when I react, even going so far as attempting to get me kicked out of the EF.
She often tries to be nice to anyone who shows me any support, like what she did with you just now. I think she has accused me of being manipulative, despite the fact that being manipulative is one of the few bad personality traits I don't have.

If I were truly manipulative, I wouldn't be talking to you right now.  :-\ I sure as hell wouldn't be explaining my behaviour. That would be "giving away my tricks". I'm here right now because you said you didn't want to fight, you only wanted explanations. I actually did think you were consciously aware of your behaviour at first, but I understand now that you're not. Hence talking.

As for being nice to people who show you support, are you suggesting I should stop?  :P
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Psychophant on December 05, 2011, 09:49:20 PM
 :trainwreck:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Calavera on December 05, 2011, 09:50:59 PM
:trainwreck:

Finally, someone making sense.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on December 05, 2011, 09:54:45 PM
Les was more than likely using you. If not, then he was certainly speaking out of anger.

Going and attacking someone you do not know, just because someone who has just been in an argument with that person says they're bad is seriously fucked up. At best, it shows that you are a very naive and easily maipulated person.

I doubt he was using me. I don't think he has that kind of guile in him. I wanted to know why he was angry.

You seem to believe any kind of attack is deranged. Am I understanding that right?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Psychophant on December 05, 2011, 09:58:14 PM
:trainwreck:

Finally, someone making sense.

 :santa:  Seriously I went and looked at the site....it's not for me.   The  :poop: here is making me wonder the same thing.   :autism:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 09:59:07 PM
I agree, and I do see a real underhanded side to Pyraxis. She admitted to deliberately goading me into a fight just because she heard bad stuff about me, and then she complains when I react, even going so far as attempting to get me kicked out of the EF.
She often tries to be nice to anyone who shows me any support, like what she did with you just now. I think she has accused me of being manipulative, despite the fact that being manipulative is one of the few bad personality traits I don't have.



I am many bad things, but I always give people a second, or a third chance, or usually as many chances as they need.
This applies to you, and I would be more than happy to give you another chance.

It will take me a long time to trust that your motives are genuine though.

Les was more than likely using you. If not, then he was certainly speaking out of anger.

Going and attacking someone you do not know, just because someone who has just been in an argument with that person says they're bad is seriously fucked up. At best, it shows that you are a very naive and easily maipulated person.

I doubt he was using me. I don't think he has that kind of guile in him. I wanted to know why he was angry.

You seem to believe any kind of attack is deranged. Am I understanding that right?

No. I believe that attacking someone you don't know, just because someone who is fighting with that person says they're bad, is deranged.
If you believe Les lacks the guile, then you don't know Les.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 05, 2011, 10:03:04 PM
:trainwreck:

Finally, someone making sense.

 :santa:  Seriously I went and looked at the site....it's not for me.   The  :poop: here is making me wonder the same thing.   :autism:

You seem to be unhappy on this site because of all the fighting. If you're not able to ignore it, then it's not worth letting yourself get upset about it.

Aspies for Freedom is a decent site, probably with a lot less fighting than this site.
Here's a link to it http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/ (http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on December 05, 2011, 10:09:16 PM
And you'll sorely be missed. :zoinks:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 05, 2011, 10:24:59 PM
:trainwreck:

Finally, someone making sense.

 :santa:  Seriously I went and looked at the site....it's not for me.   The  :poop: here is making me wonder the same thing.   :autism:

You seem to be unhappy on this site because of all the fighting. If you're not able to ignore it, then it's not worth letting yourself get upset about it.

Aspies for Freedom is a decent site, probably with a lot less fighting than this site.
Here's a link to it http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/ (http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/)

Good retort Butterflies. Weren't you just talking about leaving because you are completely incapable of modifying your own behaviour and we have to accept you as you are?
I have never in my life heard such bullshit.
Yes you are effectively trying to ask people here to put up with whatever behaviour you choose to act in because you are passed the ability as a thinking creature to change, learn, grow, adapt or make any concesssions to any of your own behaviour. That is what this "inability" to register boundaries bullshit is.
Your examples of punching head teachers and fights same.
You are asking the membership to accept you as you are and that you only came here because you believed you can push the boundaries.
Now asking if you are welcome and will you be accepted.

How about this? You are not likely to get banned any time soon. You have to back up your shit. You will get called out for bullshit, and you have been bullshittting a lot. You have the right to do the same. In other words intensitysquared will not bend itself around you want or thought it will be. It will be as it was and will be with or without Butterflies. Whether anyone on here tolerates you or not depends largely on what you are doing and you have a choice as to how you chose to behave and what you say. Consider it an enabling experience and enjoy the ride. No one will put up with claims made to the complete inability to control your behaviour, and will call out  and disagree regardless and no one wil petition to have you to leave.

You do not get to change what intensitysquared is because you want it slightly different or that you should be a class of protected person because you are younger, female (both things you have tried to draw on against Odeon and me - as you have with him being Admin/owner....fucking weak Butterflies) nor because you are apparently unable to control your behaviour. Make your choices and cop to your result of the choices. This is afterall being an adult isn't it?

Now lets look at this bullshit

I'm someone who is willing to go a step or to further: That is very true. I do have a fairly serious behaviour boundary issue. The same also applies to my sense of humour. It has affected me my whole life, from punching my head teacher to getting involved in fights against groups of people.
This is something that people have to accept if they are my friend. Sadly, it is unlikely to change anytime in the forseeable future, and TBH the only way I can control this issue is by going into a shell and not showing any personality.
I am sorry I'm like this, but there is nothing I can do about it.

1. Do you think your behaviour towards me over the 2 weeks was reasonable, especially when you could have put your views to me in a reasonable manner, and been responded to in a reasonable manner?

2. Do you want me to leave the site? I am not some feeble troll who gets a kick out of being unwelcome on a site. I know I won't be banned, so I'm giving you the option to politely say that I don't fit into your plans for this site. If so, I will be happy to request deletion, and never be seen here again.
TBH I would strongly prefer to be politely told to fuck off, than be tolerated on a site where I am not welcome.

"I am sorry I'm like this, but there is nothing I can do about it." Your choice to behave however you want.

Yes Odeon has been fine with you and with others. As have others here. This is kind of the backing yor claims bullshit. If you or I or anyone else spouts what others considers bullshit, they will (or can if seen and if the viewer is motivaed to) call out or disagree with said poster. This holds true with opinions and behaviour.

This is how it has been all along. Prior to you arriving and whilst you have been here and no doubt after you finish your residence with us. Why are you so very alarmed people would do what they have always done?

Leave or stay. It is an option that has always been made to all members. If you want to go you know the way out.
This is just a want to get support for you staying and peopel petitioning you to stay or frightened that you will leave. Cut out the showboating Butterflies. Choose to stay or choose to go. Choose your behaviour or not. Your choices



If you had spent the best part of two weeks having your decency as a person constantly called into question, would you not want to find out what you stood accused of?

You have not had your decency question. YOu have had your behaviour disagreed with. Stop bullshitting and misrepresenting

This isn't the words of someone having a simple disagreement. This is somebody who is making no secret of the fact that they are deliberately trying punish me to "teach me a lesson."
That goes well beyond a disagreement. If it's still Odeons goal to "teach me what it's like to be on the recieving end," then it would be much better all round if he just asked me to leave the site.

I'm unlikely to change as a person in the near future, and I have absolutely no intention of attempting to change myself to better fit in on an internet forum. This is who I am.

To begin with, I loved this site because I felt like my issues with taking things too far had found a place where they fitted in, and for a while they did. This part of my personality will not change. I will do it again and again, whether I want to or not.
If this is going to result in punishment by the owner of the site, then the decent thing to do would be to tell me politely that my behaviour does not fit in here. I would have no problem with that.

YOu are fine when others are copping your barbs but do not feel as good being on the other end and seemingly now whine about it (presumably because you supposedly can't help being bitchy and nasty and that it is therefore completely unwarranted).
Whatever you do, don't actively take any responsibility for this supposed inability to actually be morally responsible or whatever the fuck it is you are trying to exempt yourself. You are an adult and adults have no constraint on their ability to deal with others...right?
As for "punishment" you keep bringing that up again and again. He disagrees with you and you with him and he has had a go at you as have I and as has Py (who give a fuck if he is also the owner of the site. It is unmoderated and you and we enjoy those benefits) there is no punishment from you to him or him to you.
This too is bullshit.

Oh just saw your behaviour is indistinguishable with your personality, so you can't or should not have to change it. Bullshit. Bad behaviour ought to be always considered and thought on (if not actively dismissed from mind). All about being a free thinking human being. You are not stupid Butterflies you are though being stupid if you think we should accept such bullshit.


Les never left the site, and I can't believe anybody actually believed his little walkout :facepalm2:

Sure i did. So did you. I came back and so did you. What the fuck are you on about? What is your definition of a "little walkout"?

Nobody in their right mind claims that I'm an impeccable character. They do rightly claim that I'm usually nice, and make no secret of my nasty side.

Yes, yes "the nasty side that you can't help and that you have had trouble all your life with and we have to take you or leave you as this is what you are like and will never change and blah, blah, blah.." Bullshit.

Les was more than likely using you. If not, then he was certainly speaking out of anger.
 

Frustration and confusion mainly. Not anger. Doesn't have to be one or the other.

If you believe Les lacks the guile, then you don't know Les.

No do you, obviously, but you are allowed an opinion.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on December 05, 2011, 10:56:04 PM
It will take me a long time to trust that your motives are genuine though.

I'm starting to think yours are. So that's ok. I'd rather demonstrate by actions than words anyway because words are easier to fake.

No. I believe that attacking someone you don't know, just because someone who is fighting with that person says they're bad, is deranged.

It still takes two to fight. Fuck... this is complicated to explain and I'm kinda brain-fried. But maybe can come back to it.

If you believe Les lacks the guile, then you don't know Les.

Really? This is one of those things that you'll need to back up. I've known Les quite a while, and he's always been upfront with me.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 06, 2011, 06:58:09 AM
@Pyraxis. One less enemy is a good thing, so if youre genuine, I will be more than happy to start again with you, with a clean slate.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 06, 2011, 07:06:38 AM
@Pyraxis. One less enemy is a good thing, so if youre genuine, I will be more than happy to start again with you, with a clean slate.

There are "enemies" here? Pyraxis was your enemy? It is like you are talking a language i don't understand.
Hell, I have disagreed with you a bit and will likely continue to do so whilst you bullshit. Even so I can see you have a fair few decent points. I am not as emotionally invested as to call you an enemy and i do not believe Odeon is either.
You are just another member of IntensitySquared, Butterflies. Like everyone else here. You are under the same expectation to defend your claims and be accountable for your actions...like everyone else here.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 06, 2011, 07:33:02 AM
@Les. Im sure thats an interesting read, but I'll pass.
You appear to br a strange little man, whos online life revolves around long dismal arguments on internet fora. It appears to make you very happy.
I can tell that you desperately want to engage me in a debate, and I have no desire to make you happy, so I'll just ignore it.

I suppose youre free to continue writing lengthy essays at me, but Im unlikely to respond.

You seem like the type Id avoid IRL, and I see no reason to engage you in meaningfull discusion here either.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 06, 2011, 07:40:28 AM
@Les. Im sure thats an interesting read, but I'll pass.
You appear to br a strange little man, whos online life revolves around long dismal arguments on internet fora. It appears to make you very happy.
I can tell that you desperately want to engage me in a debate, and I have no desire to make you happy, so I'll just ignore it.

I suppose youre free to continue writing lengthy essays at me, but Im unlikely to respond.

You seem like the type Id avoid IRL, and I see no reason to engage you in meaningfull discusion here either.

You seem little a funny little online personality that likes to make a lot of over-exaggerated misrepresentations and considers herself either beyond critical examination or perhaps a special class of Aspie here to which exempts her behaviour of such. You aren't. You are not a "bad girl" you are just at the moment bullshitting a lot and getting called for it.

You are not hated or demonised you are just disagreed with and not by all and sundry even.

You make choices but refuse to acknowledge that you able to do so freely or take any responsibility for what you do or say.

You are right, I will respond to whatever i damn well like and this is just a forum and one I can do so freely. It always was.

My life does not revolve around here. I do like it here though. Been here a while and like a lot of people here. God only knows where you seem to get such insight. I am betting it is just more bullshit, don't you think?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 06, 2011, 07:59:25 AM
Of course you can reply Les. Just dont expect me to pay any more attention to you, than I would to a drunk in the street, shouting at a lamppost.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 06, 2011, 08:06:00 AM
Of course you can reply Les. Just dont expect me to pay any more attention to you, than I would to a drunk in the street, shouting at a lamppost.

Naturally I don't expect much from you either and have thus far been not that disappointed. Why would I pay homage to your attention? You are not that special Butterflies. You are one of many members here...that is it.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: midlifeaspie on December 06, 2011, 09:44:15 AM
Oh good!  This is still going on.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on December 06, 2011, 12:13:49 PM
If you could get straight to the point Les, perhaps your posts could be taken more seriously. If I want an essay, I'd walk into college.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 06, 2011, 12:31:06 PM
If you could get straight to the point Les, perhaps your posts could be taken more seriously. If I want an essay, I'd walk into college.

I totally agree. The internet is awash with interesting articles, written by talented writers.

With all those interesting things to read, I'm hardly likely to waste my time reading the inane ramblings of a dyslexic dwarf.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 06, 2011, 03:32:52 PM
If you could get straight to the point Les, perhaps your posts could be taken more seriously. If I want an essay, I'd walk into college.

I totally agree. The internet is awash with interesting articles, written by talented writers.

With all those interesting things to read, I'm hardly likely to waste my time reading the inane ramblings of a dyslexic dwarf.

Butterflies could choose to not fill her posts ith over-exaggerated misrepresentations, red herrings and denials of choice of behaviour, but she does otherwise. So I guess we are both shit out of luck.
Wondering if you could let me know why you think the opinion of my writing style by either of you two would encourage me to change it? Let me know. Won't consider it but may laugh a bit.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 06, 2011, 03:54:54 PM
Actually Les. All things considered, you don't do too badly.

They are way too long though.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Psychophant on December 06, 2011, 04:19:22 PM
 :trainwreck:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Psychophant on December 06, 2011, 04:32:03 PM
:trainwreck:

Finally, someone making sense.

 :santa:  Seriously I went and looked at the site....it's not for me.   The  :poop: here is making me wonder the same thing.   :autism:

You seem to be unhappy on this site because of all the fighting. If you're not able to ignore it, then it's not worth letting yourself get upset about it.

Aspies for Freedom is a decent site, probably with a lot less fighting than this site.
Here's a link to it http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/ (http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/)

You are right in some ways.  AFF is not for me either, tbh, I am not satisfied with any other site that I have seen.  But, this place does have a certain give and take and chances for redemption that is just not available elsewhere.   So I'll stick around here despite the drunken good ol' boys and bitches.  Why?  Because I can make a comment as I see fit, I can man up to my mistakes and I have made some friends here.   And if people don't like me, they can either talk to me or go fuck off.  I have an open mind, but, it only goes so far.  This is the internuts and I take certain parts seriously and the rest........ :yawn:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 06, 2011, 04:46:42 PM
I knew it was a bad idea to reply to you, Butterflies. No way you could simply accept that what I told you was and still is my opinion and my perceptions, and accept that I only replied because you asked me to.

Re Pandora: I meant apologising to her BEFORE she had said a single word. That's when it was still simply Les trying to explain and you refusing to see. Don't try to shift it to an apology wanted after the drama took place. Although that, too, would have impressed me.

The fact of the matter was that several people, you included, started reposting TCO's past posts while he was still banned at his own request. Check if you want. I can't be arsed.

You said you didn't need me quoting stuff (and I'm paraphrasing from the impression I got from your posts asking me to explain) but then brought the quotes yourself, only to highlight the posts I actually apologised for later on, namely those having to do with teaching you a lesson which I still think was unwarranted but made in the heat of the moment. Look at the dates and times. Nice going.

You are moving the goalposts again, Butterflies. Whether or not you do it consciously I don't know or really care about any more, but you are doing it.

As for you staying or going, your choice. Until you posted in good faith or whatever it was, I noticed that you hadn't really participated here so I assumed that you had left, presumably for this thread's namesake site for the cool young ones.

But don't make that choice about me or how you might not fit into my plans for the site because that's bullshit and just a variant of your previous strawmen re me. Or, for that matter, about how you can't change. You know bloody well how this place works and I don't have any plans other than the automated payments to hostgator. You are accountable for your actions, you need to back them up or face the wrath of the community, etc. That's all.

You stay or you go. Not going to decide it for you, it's something you have to do. But if you stay, also know that the site is unlikely to change.

Oh, and to whomever it concerns: Yes, I'm aware of Butterflies being a lot younger than I am. I assumed she wanted to be treated as an adult because a) this site is for adults only and b) the young adults tend to be pissed off when their elders treat them as lesser beings because of their age. Would you prefer me to give her a pat on the head and hope she'll grow up some day?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 06, 2011, 04:48:12 PM
BTW, Psychophant, I agree with you. This thread is a fucking train wreck. You should blame me because I was fool enough to reply.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 06, 2011, 04:50:22 PM
:trainwreck:

Finally, someone making sense.

 :santa:  Seriously I went and looked at the site....it's not for me.   The  :poop: here is making me wonder the same thing.   :autism:

You seem to be unhappy on this site because of all the fighting. If you're not able to ignore it, then it's not worth letting yourself get upset about it.

Aspies for Freedom is a decent site, probably with a lot less fighting than this site.
Here's a link to it http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/ (http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/)

You are right in some ways.  AFF is not for me either, tbh, I am not satisfied with any other site that I have seen.  But, this place does have a certain give and take and chances for redemption that is just not available elsewhere.   So I'll stick around here despite the drunken good ol' boys and bitches.  Why?  Because I can make a comment as I see fit, I can man up to my mistakes and I have made some friends here.   And if people don't like me, they can either talk to me or go fuck off.  I have an open mind, but, it only goes so far.  This is the internuts and I take certain parts seriously and the rest........ :yawn:

Fair enough. Just, whatever you do, don't let any of the drama from here drag you down.

I gather this site has a tendency to self-combust occasionally, and it looks like we're going through a bad period ATM. I assume the drama will end eventually.

My guess is that it will run until Christmas, at least in some form. A lot of us will probably not be on here much over Christmas and New Year, so that might give things a chance to die.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 06, 2011, 05:00:01 PM
I knew it was a bad idea to reply to you, Butterflies. No way you could simply accept that what I told you was and still is my opinion and my perceptions, and accept that I only replied because you asked me to.

Re Pandora: I meant apologising to her BEFORE she had said a single word. That's when it was still simply Les trying to explain and you refusing to see. Don't try to shift it to an apology wanted after the drama took place. Although that, too, would have impressed me.

The fact of the matter was that several people, you included, started reposting TCO's past posts while he was still banned at his own request. Check if you want. I can't be arsed.

You said you didn't need me quoting stuff (and I'm paraphrasing from the impression I got from your posts asking me to explain) but then brought the quotes yourself, only to highlight the posts I actually apologised for later on, namely those having to do with teaching you a lesson which I still think was unwarranted but made in the heat of the moment. Look at the dates and times. Nice going.

You are moving the goalposts again, Butterflies. Whether or not you do it consciously I don't know or really care about any more, but you are doing it.

As for you staying or going, your choice. Until you posted in good faith or whatever it was, I noticed that you hadn't really participated here so I assumed that you had left, presumably for this thread's namesake site for the cool young ones.

But don't make that choice about me or how you might not fit into my plans for the site because that's bullshit and just a variant of your previous strawmen re me. Or, for that matter, about how you can't change. You know bloody well how this place works and I don't have any plans other than the automated payments to hostgator. You are accountable for your actions, you need to back them up or face the wrath of the community, etc. That's all.

You stay or you go. Not going to decide it for you, it's something you have to do. But if you stay, also know that the site is unlikely to change.

Oh, and to whomever it concerns: Yes, I'm aware of Butterflies being a lot younger than I am. I assumed she wanted to be treated as an adult because a) this site is for adults only and b) the young adults tend to be pissed off when their elders treat them as lesser beings because of their age. Would you prefer me to give her a pat on the head and hope she'll grow up some day?

I replied to you perfectly nicely, so I'm not sure what you're going on about.


Quote
Re Pandora: I meant apologising to her BEFORE she had said a single word. That's when it was still simply Les trying to explain and you refusing to see. Don't try to shift it to an apology wanted after the drama took place. Although that, too, would have impressed me.
I explained that I see apologizing as asking for forgiveness. I wouldn't want Pandoras forgiveness, so I have no need to apologize.
That does not mean that what I said wasn't mean.


Quote
The fact of the matter was that several people, you included, started reposting TCO's past posts while he was still banned at his own request. Check if you want. I can't be arsed.
Yes. He was banned. He was on FB trying to get the whole site banned from WP at the time. The thread you speak of was created to link the people from FB to.


Quote
You said you didn't need me quoting stuff (and I'm paraphrasing from the impression I got from your posts asking me to explain) but then brought the quotes yourself, only to highlight the posts I actually apologised for later on, namely those having to do with teaching you a lesson which I still think was unwarranted but made in the heat of the moment. Look at the dates and times. Nice going.
OK. that's fair enough. I was trying to show Parts that this wasn't some silly disagreement. Perhaps I went about it the wrong way.
I don't remember recieving an apology from you though.


Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Psychophant on December 06, 2011, 05:08:55 PM
BTW, Psychophant, I agree with you. This thread is a fucking train wreck. You should blame me because I was fool enough to reply.

I see a lot of people here who can't help themselves.  So, whatever, it's your problem NOT mine.  I don't blame anybody...........at least not anybody by name......it's a shared responsibility. 
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Psychophant on December 06, 2011, 05:11:58 PM
:trainwreck:

Finally, someone making sense.

 :santa:  Seriously I went and looked at the site....it's not for me.   The  :poop: here is making me wonder the same thing.   :autism:

You seem to be unhappy on this site because of all the fighting. If you're not able to ignore it, then it's not worth letting yourself get upset about it.

Aspies for Freedom is a decent site, probably with a lot less fighting than this site.
Here's a link to it http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/ (http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/)

You are right in some ways.  AFF is not for me either, tbh, I am not satisfied with any other site that I have seen.  But, this place does have a certain give and take and chances for redemption that is just not available elsewhere.   So I'll stick around here despite the drunken good ol' boys and bitches.  Why?  Because I can make a comment as I see fit, I can man up to my mistakes and I have made some friends here.   And if people don't like me, they can either talk to me or go fuck off.  I have an open mind, but, it only goes so far.  This is the internuts and I take certain parts seriously and the rest........ :yawn:

Fair enough. Just, whatever you do, don't let any of the drama from here drag you down.

I gather this site has a tendency to self-combust occasionally, and it looks like we're going through a bad period ATM. I assume the drama will end eventually.

My guess is that it will run until Christmas, at least in some form. A lot of us will probably not be on here much over Christmas and New Year, so that might give things a chance to die.

I'm not gonna let anything in cyberspace drag me down!   :laugh:  As I said, if people have a problem with me..TALK TO ME, publicly or privately.......I give respect where it's earned and given. 
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 06, 2011, 05:14:15 PM
I don't remember recieving an apology from you though.

You didn't read the thread you are posting in?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 06, 2011, 05:16:39 PM
I don't remember recieving an apology from you though.

You didn't read the thread you are posting in?

I honestly don't recall recieving an apology from you. What was my response? I would never ignore an apology.

If I didn't respond, then I did not see it.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 27, 2011, 01:08:51 PM
Spasticity has already become a ghost town. How did that happen??
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: "couldbecousin" on December 27, 2011, 01:14:20 PM
Spasticity has already become a ghost town. How did that happen??

 It happened because postwhores like us have given up!  To the rescue, I say!  :viking:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Callaway on December 27, 2011, 01:15:06 PM
Spasticity has already become a ghost town. How did that happen??

Maybe there weren't enough people considered sufficiently cool to post there?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: "couldbecousin" on December 27, 2011, 01:16:49 PM
Spasticity has already become a ghost town. How did that happen??

Maybe there weren't enough people considered sufficiently cool to post there?

 I am cool enough to post anywhere I want!  8)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 27, 2011, 01:23:47 PM
Spasticity has already become a ghost town. How did that happen??

 It happened because postwhores like us have given up!  To the rescue, I say!  :viking:

I've managed to out postwhore you! I'm almost to 400 posts.  8)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Callaway on December 27, 2011, 01:25:52 PM
Spasticity has already become a ghost town. How did that happen??

Maybe there weren't enough people considered sufficiently cool to post there?

 I am cool enough to post anywhere I want!  8)

That's true.  I believe someone mentioned you by name as someone they hoped would postwhore there.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 27, 2011, 01:27:03 PM
Spasticity has already become a ghost town. How did that happen??

Maybe there weren't enough people considered sufficiently cool to post there?

Part of the problem IMO, is that most of the people there are from Europe, there's ony 2 active posters from America (me and CBC) and none from Australia/Asia. That leaves a time gap  where there's no one posting, therefore, it's common to be the only one logged on at any particular time.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: "couldbecousin" on December 27, 2011, 01:31:17 PM
Spasticity has already become a ghost town. How did that happen??

 It happened because postwhores like us have given up!  To the rescue, I say!  :viking:

I've managed to out postwhore you! I'm almost to 400 posts.  8)

 Yeah, but how many of those are pr0n or airplane pics?  :P
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 27, 2011, 01:33:29 PM
Spasticity has already become a ghost town. How did that happen??

 It happened because postwhores like us have given up!  To the rescue, I say!  :viking:

I've managed to out postwhore you! I'm almost to 400 posts.  8)

 Yeah, but how many of those are pr0n or airplane pics?  :P

Not all of them. some of them are cafe racer pics.  :headbang2:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: "couldbecousin" on December 27, 2011, 01:34:50 PM
Spasticity has already become a ghost town. How did that happen??

 It happened because postwhores like us have given up!  To the rescue, I say!  :viking:

I've managed to out postwhore you! I'm almost to 400 posts.  8)

 Yeah, but how many of those are pr0n or airplane pics?  :P

Not all of them. some of them are cafe racer pics.  :headbang2:

 I could match your count by spamming with pics of food, but I won't.  :M
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: ShyOne on December 27, 2011, 01:39:56 PM
Spasticity has already become a ghost town. How did that happen??

 It happened because postwhores like us have given up!  To the rescue, I say!  :viking:

I've managed to out postwhore you! I'm almost to 400 posts.  8)

 Yeah, but how many of those are pr0n or airplane pics?  :P

Not all of them. some of them are cafe racer pics.  :headbang2:

 I could match your count by spamming with pics of food, but I won't.  :M
Holy shit. I think that might just save the site, if only through not being dead as a result of lots of food posts. Will you join me in a food thread?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 27, 2011, 01:41:29 PM
Spasticity has already become a ghost town. How did that happen??

 It happened because postwhores like us have given up!  To the rescue, I say!  :viking:

I've managed to out postwhore you! I'm almost to 400 posts.  8)

 Yeah, but how many of those are pr0n or airplane pics?  :P

Not all of them. some of them are cafe racer pics.  :headbang2:

 I could match your count by spamming with pics of food, but I won't.  :M

Food isn't as cool as cafe racers!!!  :M


(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wSgGfzUvz6E/TipQbx1CXoI/AAAAAAAAHBU/2kSTUmnvIKA/s640/cafe-racer-babe-06.jpg)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: "couldbecousin" on December 27, 2011, 01:41:42 PM
Spasticity has already become a ghost town. How did that happen??

 It happened because postwhores like us have given up!  To the rescue, I say!  :viking:

I've managed to out postwhore you! I'm almost to 400 posts.  8)

 Yeah, but how many of those are pr0n or airplane pics?  :P

Not all of them. some of them are cafe racer pics.  :headbang2:

 I could match your count by spamming with pics of food, but I won't.  :M
Holy shit. I think that might just save the site, if only through not being dead as a result of lots of food posts. Will you join me in a food thread?

 Why yes, I will!  You start it and I will   :blah: :blah: :blah:   in it!
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: ShyOne on December 27, 2011, 01:44:36 PM
it's done, in forum games! go go goooo!
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on December 27, 2011, 01:44:50 PM
tbh I think the reason is the lack of drama and no likelihood of any arising soon unless pea start something lol

the problem isn't that there arent enough cool people to post there (there are), but that maybe it actually NEEDS one or two of the more boring ones who are also more likely to have disagreements

but then the problem becomes that those disagreemets go on for too long if they don't know how to let it go once the fun's gone

I'm going away for a few days and probably wont be online (except facebook updates from phone), but when I get back I'll make sure to try and start some interesting threads. and if that doesnt work then just spam :zoinks:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on December 27, 2011, 01:53:40 PM
I'll give it another month. If it still lacks activity, I'll back it up and close it down. The host will remain however, I use it to store my own files too.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: "couldbecousin" on December 27, 2011, 02:02:30 PM
I'll give it another month. If it still lacks activity, I'll back it up and close it down. The host will remain however, I use it to store my own files too.

 It would really be a shame to shut it down, I hope you don't.  :orly:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 27, 2011, 05:43:12 PM
Most sites resulting from drama elsewhere tend not to last. Remember OTS?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 27, 2011, 06:31:02 PM
Most sites resulting from drama elsewhere tend not to last. Remember OTS?

Yes, I was there fore a few months. That's where I first met Wandrew IIRC.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'andersom' on December 27, 2011, 06:32:41 PM
Most sites resulting from drama elsewhere tend not to last. Remember OTS?

Because it lacks the luuuuuurvvveee?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 27, 2011, 06:42:29 PM
TBH, I'm not sure. But most of the time when site X is born, stating that they are like site Y but without the <insert what you don't like about site Y> almost guarantees oblivion.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on December 27, 2011, 06:44:15 PM
True

although zomg did work for a while. not brilliantly, but it did work.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 27, 2011, 06:49:17 PM
Zomg had more going for it, I think. And I'm not saying site X must fail, but it helps to have your own purpose instead of copying someone else's.

Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: P7PSP on December 27, 2011, 08:59:45 PM
Yeah I think spasticity is best as a younger-orientated (young in mind I mean, I'm not gonna exclude the cool older people from that :zoinks: ) version of intensity, without the bullshit
the problem isn't that there arent enough cool people to post there (there are), but that maybe it actually NEEDS one or two of the more boring ones who are also more likely to have disagreements
So you got Scrap (40 IIRC) who is combative, not exactly young and willing to throw old fuckers under the bus (as in "I'm older but cool anyway") to join via sucking up to the younger = cooler mindset and shit looks like it may not last @ Spasticity anyway? How could you fuck it up with a winning formula like that?  :dunno: :LMAO:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on December 27, 2011, 09:09:01 PM
???
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 28, 2011, 03:48:10 AM
Yeah I think spasticity is best as a younger-orientated (young in mind I mean, I'm not gonna exclude the cool older people from that :zoinks: ) version of intensity, without the bullshit
the problem isn't that there arent enough cool people to post there (there are), but that maybe it actually NEEDS one or two of the more boring ones who are also more likely to have disagreements
So you got Scrap (40 IIRC) who is combative, not exactly young and willing to throw old fuckers under the bus (as in "I'm older but cool anyway") to join via sucking up to the younger = cooler mindset and shit looks like it may not last @ Spasticity anyway? How could you fuck it up with a winning formula like that?  :dunno: :LMAO:

Pretty much nailed it.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on December 28, 2011, 08:11:10 AM
No one panders to anyone on there, there's just none of that haughty i2 callout wank that you see here. How is that young-orientated?

S2 to me is aimed for everyone, but even though it's an aspie-orientated forum it's not about whinging about their problems. There's no AS-related forums to be seen, everything's aimed towards general discussion and having a few laughs. Drama can happen but it's not centred around it. It's more like ZOMG with elements of i2, it doesn't try to blatantly copy any place except in order to make various members be familiar with it. Frankly I'm surprised it lasted this long. :tard:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 28, 2011, 08:33:58 AM
No one panders to anyone on there, there's just none of that haughty i2 callout wank that you see here. How is that young-orientated?

S2 to me is aimed for everyone, but even though it's an aspie-orientated forum it's not about whinging about their problems. There's no AS-related forums to be seen, everything's aimed towards general discussion and having a few laughs. Drama can happen but it's not centred around it. It's more like ZOMG with elements of i2, it doesn't try to blatantly copy any place except in order to make various members be familiar with it. Frankly I'm surprised it lasted this long. :tard:

I had not seen any of that haughty callout wank here. Perhaps i am not looking to see such things in the first place.

Shleed it is early days yet. The initial recruitment drive was a bit off-putting. We had both Adam and Scrap telling all it was orientated for cool aspies and for young or young at heart aspies, or whatever the fuck they were trying to promote, and i think you said some other anti-i2 bullshit. I quoted the lot of you on this thread somewhere if i could be arsed looking for it, which I am not.

Problem with promoting it is, if it doesn't draw people there based on such promotion, then you may be right in saying" it is not like that", after the fact, but the people turned off in going in the first place are not gonna find out either way, as they never joined.

As I say early days perhaps promoting it about the other forums like Superboyians place and such will draw a steady trickle over and boost the numbers and activity over time. So long as the promoting doesn't put people off who may otherwise wanna come over
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 28, 2011, 10:32:58 AM
No one panders to anyone on there, there's just none of that haughty i2 callout wank that you see here. How is that young-orientated?

S2 to me is aimed for everyone, but even though it's an aspie-orientated forum it's not about whinging about their problems. There's no AS-related forums to be seen, everything's aimed towards general discussion and having a few laughs. Drama can happen but it's not centred around it. It's more like ZOMG with elements of i2, it doesn't try to blatantly copy any place except in order to make various members be familiar with it. Frankly I'm surprised it lasted this long. :tard:

"haughty i2 callout wank"?

Give it time.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on December 28, 2011, 10:54:01 AM
 :facepalm2:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on December 28, 2011, 10:55:34 AM
Give what time? I never denied there will be drama, if I actually believed that then I would be a fucking retard.

Drama is drama and it will happen regardless, but the difference is that it's not over-glorified into a literal board. The likes of dedicated callout boards/threads and the peanut gallery only fufill their egos, rather than to actually sort shit out. This is why I called it "haughty i2 callout wank".

If they want to do it in the format familiar to i2, then they can knock themselves out until their e-penises stain the entire area in jizz. However, I will not enforce rules or make boards to cater it unlike here.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 28, 2011, 04:14:19 PM
So quit your passive-aggressive whining about it and show the cool people how it's supposed to be done. :yawn:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: earthboundmisfit on December 28, 2011, 06:22:30 PM


Superboyian has a forum? Don't see him much around here, seems like a cool guy.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: "couldbecousin" on December 28, 2011, 07:08:09 PM


Superboyian has a forum? Don't see him much around here, seems like a cool guy.

 Yeah, I wish he would come back, he was a cheerful presence.  :chin:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on December 28, 2011, 08:04:26 PM
So quit your passive-aggressive whining about it and show the cool people how it's supposed to be done. :yawn:

Funny, for a 22 page thread about this I barely responded about the forum.

EDIT: How about you give me advice on how it's supposed to be done? :orly:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 29, 2011, 12:41:59 AM
So quit your passive-aggressive whining about it and show the cool people how it's supposed to be done. :yawn:

Funny, for a 22 page thread about this I barely responded about the forum.

EDIT: How about you give me advice on how it's supposed to be done? :orly:

Funny what happens when you do respond, then.

But seriously, Schleed, I don't know how it's done. What I do know is that I2's concept works for I2 but is unlikely to work elsewhere. I do believe S2 should try its own thing instead of what it was marketed like here, and I also believe it doesn't give it more credibility when its owner uses phrases like "haughty i2 callout wank", here, or its members talk about including the cool and (mostly) young ones. Kind of telling when posted here, IMO.

Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 30, 2011, 04:40:16 AM
What it looked like to me (and I am sure i am not alone) is that there was a fair bit of drama here, like there is from time to time, and you and a number of others used the unsettled time as an opportunity to try to recruit members over there, and portray Spasticity as a better alternative to I2. It was to be a better place for the better members, the younger members, the cooler members and be all the best of this site, all contained in your site. Your members on there talked it up for you too, in the same way.

With the initial attempts not driving most active members away from here and over there, and activity here not dwindling to a standstill, you started to backtrack saying that Spasticity was "for everyone".

Now you are saying "My site is not active as I want. Spasticity is set up for (not cool or younger Aspies as you tried to promote before) Aspies not invested in haunty callout wank like you get on here....oh by the way, can you guys help my site?"

Fail Shleed. Fail.

Maybe look to memberships at other sites, and in your recruitment efforts do not try to tell the site members that their site is shit and you are only interested in the smartest, coolest, best looking, youngest, or whatever the fuck you may want to say to talk up your quiet little site.

Just a suggestion.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 30, 2011, 06:35:02 PM
I'm not sure why people keep bringing up s2 being a site for the "cool aspies." If anybody did say that it was, they were unlikely to be serious.
One of the first things I done was invite Penty, and not long afterwards, Richard.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on December 30, 2011, 07:35:51 PM
This isn't going to convince them. We're cool young kids, so fuck these old farts and let's do cool shit! :trollface:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: P7PSP on December 30, 2011, 09:16:03 PM
I'm not sure why people keep bringing up s2 being a site for the "cool aspies." If anybody did say that it was, they were unlikely to be serious.
One of the first things I done was invite Penty, and not long afterwards, Richard.
Yeah I think spasticity is best as a younger-orientated (young in mind I mean, I'm not gonna exclude the cool older people from that :zoinks: ) version of intensity, without the bullshit
the problem isn't that there arent enough cool people to post there (there are), but that maybe it actually NEEDS one or two of the more boring ones who are also more likely to have disagreements
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 30, 2011, 10:06:29 PM
I'm not sure why people keep bringing up s2 being a site for the "cool aspies." If anybody did say that it was, they were unlikely to be serious.
One of the first things I done was invite Penty, and not long afterwards, Richard.
Yeah I think spasticity is best as a younger-orientated (young in mind I mean, I'm not gonna exclude the cool older people from that :zoinks: ) version of intensity, without the bullshit
the problem isn't that there arent enough cool people to post there (there are), but that maybe it actually NEEDS one or two of the more boring ones who are also more likely to have disagreements

One person on the site has made a couple of comments about wanting cool members.

Adam has also made similar comments about wanting more cool members here, but nobody would say that this is a site for the "cool aspies," just because of a comment by Adam.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 31, 2011, 01:22:00 AM
Holy Forum Soap Opera Batman!!!!!!!!!!

Did odeon and Sir Les just commit an Ascan and accuse Spasticity as being a "New Aspie Elite"??


  :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:



 :hahaha:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 31, 2011, 01:44:23 AM
Holy Forum Soap Opera Batman!!!!!!!!!!

Did odeon and Sir Les just commit an Ascan and accuse Spasticity as being a "New Aspie Elite"??


  :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:



 :hahaha:

No not at all Scrap and you know we didn't. So does Butterflies. YOu both know that this cool place for young aspies and a better alternative to I2 is precisely wht YOU and Adam and Shleed and Butterflies were saying. Odeon and PPK and I are repeating what YOU have been saying, so why try to bullshit about this and say it starts from us?
Fucking weak both of you.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 31, 2011, 01:48:47 AM
Yes butterflies tell us it was only the one comment from Adam.
Yes Scrap go on and tell us it is just something originated from Odeon and myself and had no basis in anything you guys have said.

Yeah, but it's not going to be an anti-i2 site or anything. Although people can bitch about it if they want.
Of course not. Why would anyone think it was anti-I2 or born from such sentiment? Hardly needed saying Shleed.
I hope it doesn't become the bitchfest that I2 is right now.

Surprised there's already so much activity in only a night. People must REALLY be sick of i2.
Being like this place, but without the misplaced moral outrage would be a good thing.
Yeah I think spasticity is best as a …. version of intensity, without the bullshit
It might be a good option for anyone who thinks this site has gone downhill recently.
….. except as a place for when people are tired of having to see constant drama on websites like i2.

Just one little comment.

 :poo:

Do not try to rewrite history
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: earthboundmisfit on December 31, 2011, 01:52:03 AM


:poo:


Whenever I see this guy, I can hear the turds bouncing off his little shield.


bink bonk CLANK
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: P7PSP on December 31, 2011, 02:09:00 AM
I'm not sure why people keep bringing up s2 being a site for the "cool aspies." If anybody did say that it was, they were unlikely to be serious.
One of the first things I done was invite Penty, and not long afterwards, Richard.
Yeah I think spasticity is best as a younger-orientated (young in mind I mean, I'm not gonna exclude the cool older people from that :zoinks: ) version of intensity, without the bullshit
the problem isn't that there arent enough cool people to post there (there are), but that maybe it actually NEEDS one or two of the more boring ones who are also more likely to have disagreements

One person on the site has made a couple of comments about wanting cool members.

Adam has also made similar comments about wanting more cool members here, but nobody would say that this is a site for the "cool aspies," just because of a comment by Adam.
Soph can choose to address that or not. Likewise for Scrap. I find the apparent disgust about "drama", "moral outrage" etc by some here, including you, to smell like bullshit given that you, Scrap and Soph and others* have done your share of shit stirring here and elsewhere. You just don't like the direction some of the discussion has taken lately. Not liking some discussions is understandable, pretending that argumentative shit is something new on this site is disingenuous.** 

Right after I got here I read a bunch of the old callouts and arguments in other threads to get a feel for the place. Before I ever got here Ahayes, Phuc Vou, TCO, Kallister ,Johnny, Gus and others were quarreling over anything and everything and the same shit has waxed and waned since then. Pretending otherwise won't make it so.

*Me as well.

**Sounds nicer than bullshit doesn't it.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 31, 2011, 02:42:26 AM
YOu both know that this cool place for young aspies and a better alternative to I2 is precisely wht YOU and Adam and Shleed and Butterflies were saying. Odeon and PPK and I are repeating what YOU have been saying, so why try to bullshit about this and say it starts from us?

Bullshit! I never said that S2 was supposed to be a "cooler" place. Soph said that. You're putting words in my mouth.

Talk about rewriting history.   ::)

The only thing I ever said was that I hope it didn't become a bitch fest.     :facepalm2:   

:fp:
 
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 31, 2011, 03:22:35 AM
YOu both know that this cool place for young aspies and a better alternative to I2 is precisely wht YOU and Adam and Shleed and Butterflies were saying. Odeon and PPK and I are repeating what YOU have been saying, so why try to bullshit about this and say it starts from us?

Bullshit! I never said that S2 was supposed to be a "cooler" place. Soph said that. You're putting words in my mouth.

Talk about rewriting history.   ::)

The only thing I ever said was that I hope it didn't become a bitch fest.     :facepalm2:   

:fp:

You promoted it on Drivel that way.

No biggie mate. It doesn't matter now does it? You know that. We know that and we also all know that your saying that Odeon was trying to imply Spasticity is for the Aspie Elite was bullshit. Again, you know that and so does everyone else. We all know that Butterflies saying "Oh it was just Adam's comment" was bullshit.

Not sure i undersatnd the point in trying to say otherwise. I am sure you have your reasons, all of you, and i am sure they don't matter.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 31, 2011, 03:30:44 AM
That's right, Scrap. You didn't.

What was said and by whom is clear. The sentiment behind is just as clear. What I find interesting is how (mainly) Schleed and Butterflies now attempt to mask that sentiment.

And before you all go on another misdirected tirade, let me just make it clear that I have no problems with someone starting a site for the young aspies or a site without callouts or a site for the cool ones or a site without the moral outrage or whatever. Just don't lie about your motives later.

Re the aspie elite comment: Scrap, please point out whatever similarities you see, because frankly, I see none.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 31, 2011, 07:30:47 AM
This is bullshit. Les has simply printed a list of criticisms of Intensity. He has not shown any evidence that there has ever been an effort made to make the site exclusive.

Odeon is talking shit again. He claims that I am involved in trying to "mask the sentiment." I was never of the sentiment that s2 was for cool people. I invited Penty.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 31, 2011, 07:46:59 AM
I'm sure you might even believe that, but me, I think the quotes summarise what happened quite nicely. For those who want more, reading the whole thread should do the job.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 31, 2011, 07:56:54 AM
I'm sure you might even believe that, but me, I think the quotes summarise what happened quite nicely. For those who want more, reading the whole thread should do the job.

OK. Who are the "uncool aspies" who we have tried to exclude?
If Penty was the first person I personally invited, then that surely removes any suspicion of attempted exclusivity.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: renaeden on December 31, 2011, 07:59:40 AM
^I am getting the impression that you think Pentagram and richard are "uncool" and you invited them despite this. It bothers me. It is like pity or something. I am getting that because you have explicitly stated that you invited them instead of simply saying nothing about it.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 31, 2011, 08:07:17 AM
^I am getting the impression that you think Pentagram and richard are "uncool" and you invited them despite this. It bothers me. It is like pity or something. I am getting that because you have explicitly stated that you invited them instead of simply saying nothing about it.

I like Penty, but he is not seen as cool by a lot of people. Im sure he would be the first to acknowledge this.

I am mentioning it to counter Odeon and Les' attempts to rewrite history.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 31, 2011, 08:28:03 AM
^I am getting the impression that you think Pentagram and richard are "uncool" and you invited them despite this. It bothers me. It is like pity or something. I am getting that because you have explicitly stated that you invited them instead of simply saying nothing about it.

Agreed. There's a strong feeling of picking a more extreme example to show how inclusive she can be. She's not doing Penty any favours.

I like Penty, but he is not seen as cool by a lot of people. Im sure he would be the first to acknowledge this.

I am mentioning it to counter Odeon and Les' attempts to rewrite history.

Tell me how we changed a single word in those quotes. Tell me how we have rewritten anything.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 31, 2011, 08:35:26 AM
You have, on several occasions, refered to the site as being for "the cool aspies."
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 31, 2011, 08:36:18 AM
This is bullshit. Les has simply printed a list of criticisms of Intensity. He has not shown any evidence that there has ever been an effort made to make the site exclusive.

Odeon is talking shit again. He claims that I am involved in trying to "mask the sentiment." I was never of the sentiment that s2 was for cool people. I invited Penty.

Wow. You started reading my essays again?

I am just putting out there what I see, right or wrong, but I don't think that what I have shown is anything more or less than what I have indicated. People can think what they like naturally.

Re-write it any way you want though Butterflies. It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, does it.
Just do not expect me or anyone else here to buy bullshit because it is more convenient for you to peddle it. It is one thing about teh written word, you can question people's recollection in real life and they are relying on memory. You question the written word on a forum liek this and it is all here in black and white. Doing so is fraught with difficulties and makes you (or anyone else trying to disclaim this) as either silly at best or untruthful at worst.

Yeah, but it's not going to be an anti-i2 site or anything. Although people can bitch about it if they want.
So let’s see if we would have any reason for thinking that Spastcity was set up (at a time of a lot of drama at I2) might have been set up as ant-I2 OR set up for cooler or younger Aspies. Perhaps if the below comments don’t give that impression then you are right Butterflies and so is Shleed and Scrap and Adam.
 
I hope it doesn't become the bitchfest that I2 is right now.
This is critical of I2 certainly, but not all together promoting Spasticity as a better alternative.
Surprised there's already so much activity in only a night. People must REALLY be sick of i2.
One busy opening night and so the site is a success and it is because people are sick of i2 or because it is new. I think we have the answer to that already. This is more of a put-down of I2 to boost efforts at Spasticity (Like a “Hey guys we are having fun over there. Come on over. This place sucks’).
Being like this place, but without the misplaced moral outrage would be a good thing.
Yes the mysterious misplaced moral outrage that is so easy to type and so hard to actually back up. This is definitely spruicking and very much trying to say Spasticity is better than I2.
Yeah I think spasticity is best as a …. version of intensity, without the bullshit
Ditto
It might be a good option for anyone who thinks this site has gone downhill recently.
Ditto
….. except as a place for when people are tired of having to see constant drama on websites like i2.
Ditto

Well what is this? This was at Duncsdrivel. Written by Lord Scrapheap (Café racer) himself
For those of you who might be interested, it looks like Shleed is trying to get Spasticity going again.
From the looks of it, it's going to be like Intensity, except marketed towards younger members.
I hope it doesn't become the bitchfest that I2 is right now.
Scrap on here
I decided to let them transfer from the old forum, a bit of money but messing with cpanel will take some getting used to. :dunno:

So what are your plans for Spasticity 2.0??

So far it just seems like here, except marketed towards younger members.

Will there be a significant difference between the two sites??
So not aimed for everyone but is it just aimed at younger members.  Just younger members?
Yeah I think spasticity is best as a younger-orientated (young in mind I mean, I'm not gonna exclude the cool older people from that :zoinks: ) version of intensity, without the bullshit

Nope younger members and ‘cool” older members (presumably judge by a panel of socially retarded aspies no doubt)
But go on Butterflies, lie, deny, disclaim, re-write, project, or try doing anything but to say what I am sure most of us understand, and that is that a collection of you involved in much of the recent drama here, rather than being accountable for your bullshit, decided to create an alternative little site where you could hang out together. A place where you could recruit from the I2 member base and that you all took part in the very transparent efforts to portray that site as better than I2 because of the ‘bitchfest/drama”( that you all were personally involved with, but pointed blame away from). A place that was for a cooler, younger crowd and not subject to “callout wank” (I read this as loosely being able to say what you want without being subject to being questioned – Actually I see how this would attract you butterflies as you have absolutely no control in what you say or do from what you have tried to tell us). That is the truth isn’t it?

Of course now that it is having activity problems and perhaps will not go the distance you are all trying to bullshit and bluff your way around the history of its birth. If you were a booming success and most of the people left here and joined there you would have been dancing on i2’s grave and happily accepted credit for such a clever piece of politicking. You weren’t and so you trying to lie, deny and cry.

Fucking weak. Absolute fail.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 31, 2011, 08:37:47 AM
You have, on several occasions, refered to the site as being for "the cool aspies."

A quote from Adam, I think.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 31, 2011, 08:45:24 AM
@Odeon. Yes. Its a quote from a member. Adam has said similar stuff about attracting cool people here.

@Les. Yes. Those quotes do show some anti-i2 sentiment. They dont suggest at any desire for s2 to have an exclusive membership though.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 31, 2011, 08:50:05 AM
@Odeon. Yes. Its a quote from a member. Adam has said similar stuff about attracting cool people here.

@Les. Yes. Those quotes do show some anti-i2 sentiment. They dont suggest at any desire for s2 to have an exclusive membership though.

Meaning that we didn't rewrite anything. I suppose that is as close as we'll get to an admission?

The anti-I2 sentiment implies excluding those accused of "moral outrage", just to pick but one example. Or the uncool older aspies.

You don't have to state something like that directly, Butterflies. Don't insult our intelligence by saying that you've missed the implications.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 31, 2011, 09:04:21 AM
@Odeon. Yes. Its a quote from a member. Adam has said similar stuff about attracting cool people here.

@Les. Yes. Those quotes do show some anti-i2 sentiment. They dont suggest at any desire for s2 to have an exclusive membership though.

Meaning that we didn't rewrite anything. I suppose that is as close as we'll get to an admission?

The anti-I2 sentiment implies excluding those accused of "moral outrage", just to pick but one example. Or the uncool older aspies.

You don't have to state something like that directly, Butterflies. Don't insult our intelligence by saying that you've missed the implications.

Indeed. It doesn't really matter either at the end of the day.
Bullshit is bullshit and you will not get banned for that.
You will not get banned for anti-I2 sentiment or a failed headhunting expedition or for misrepresentation.
The worst that will happen is you will have to look like a twit for your efforts. The same applies to anyone and everyone trying the same kind of things.
As crappy as this place may be in your or anyone else's estimation, it allows people to make an absolute arse of themselves without censor or banning.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 31, 2011, 10:41:31 AM
@Odeon. Its not an admission of anything. A couple of comments from one member, that were possibly tongue in cheek, do not suggest that s2 has ever had a policy of persuing an exclusive membership.
You could just as easily pick comments from people on this site, to suggest that this is an anti-WP, or anti-Alex site.
The views of 1 member of a site does not automatically represent the views of a site. Im sure you know this as well as anyone.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on December 31, 2011, 10:57:47 AM
-violation of TOS removed-
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 31, 2011, 12:23:19 PM
Re the aspie elite comment: Scrap, please point out whatever similarities you see, because frankly, I see none.

I phrased it as a question on purpose. Both you and Les were using the "cool aspies" moniker that Soph first used.

I was just pointing to the irony of that.

It doesn't matter if you were paraphrasing or not because i wasn't accusing anyone of anything.

The only similarity is the concept of a class of über Aspies.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Parts on December 31, 2011, 03:31:08 PM
So this is what it has come to, nasty personal attacks meant to stir up needless drama?  Are you so desperate to resort to this? I had thought better of you but I see I am wrong :thumbdn:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Zippo on December 31, 2011, 07:10:11 PM
IntensitySquared: Odeon, you son of a Finnish whore! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZFrezItQik#ws)

you a little drunk there schleed?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: P7PSP on December 31, 2011, 07:20:39 PM
Looks like pee pee still doesn't like me.  :laugh:
IntensitySquared: Odeon, you son of a Finnish whore! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZFrezItQik#ws)

you a little drunk there schleed?
SOP for shleed.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 31, 2011, 07:56:12 PM
Spasticity was a place created for the benefit of all aspies? Nope and if this doesn't highlight it, I dunno what will.
Good luck with it Shleed.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on December 31, 2011, 08:59:15 PM
I guess that if personal attacks are the only thing that come to mind for you, Schleed, you have already lost.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on December 31, 2011, 09:32:24 PM
IntensitySquared: Odeon, you son of a Finnish whore! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZFrezItQik#ws)

you a little drunk there schleed?

That isn't Scheed, that's Peaguy.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on December 31, 2011, 10:58:10 PM
This is bullshit. Someone from S2 has done something that some of you disagree with.
Plenty of us here have done shitty stuff to others, myself included. Not sure why a couple of people seem so interested in S2.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Callaway on December 31, 2011, 11:22:22 PM
This is bullshit. Someone from S2 has done something that some of you disagree with.
Plenty of us here have done shitty stuff to others, myself included. Not sure why a couple of people seem so interested in S2.

It seems to me that it's a S2 team effort since Pea made the YouTube as a nasty personal attack and Schleed (who is the owner and admin of S2) reposted it here.  Do you think personal attacks like this are acceptable? 

I thought that Schleed said that he wanted S2 to have less drama than Intensity, so if that's true, then why drag S2's drama here?

Here's what he said: 

It's not "marketed" at anything and that was never my intention, except as a place for when people are tired of having to see constant drama on websites like i2....
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on January 01, 2012, 12:37:46 AM
Just playing the messenger. He requested it to be posted.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'Butterflies' on January 01, 2012, 12:52:03 AM
@Callaway. I do think personal attacks are OK here. I cant see Pees vids ATM though. Posting from phone.

This site has always been full of personal attacks. I have made some myself. Some I regret, and some I dont.

On a free speech site, people have to have the right to say what they want. You might not like what they say, but they have the right to say it.

I think we have to consider how we would treat someone who is not popular on the site. Personal attacks are tolerated, if not encouraged, on some of the bigger dicks on the site.
Odeon does not deserve special treatment, and his behaviour has been terrible recently, so Im not surprised hes attracted attention.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Callaway on January 01, 2012, 12:58:56 AM
Just playing the messenger. He requested it to be posted.

Why is it that you think you need to obey Pea?  I thought that he said some awful things to and about Crip.  Are the two of you friends again?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on January 01, 2012, 01:17:42 AM
The past is the past. He asked if anyone wanted to post that video on i2, I decided to.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on January 01, 2012, 01:55:47 AM
well i cant be arsed readin all this shit on my phone but i am def in the top ten i2 members for coolness
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Calavera on January 01, 2012, 02:33:24 AM
Ok, let's keep things balanced for the sake of objectivity.

That video only shows one side of the story and displays a theory of mind issue. Not every person who ends up cheating in a relationship is actually a bad person. Sometimes good people end up cheating because the husband/wife may be so self-centered he's unable to satisfy the emotional and sexual needs of the other spouse and so the other spouse goes elsewhere for these needs when tempted. It can happen to otherwise good innocent people. Yes, cheating is wrong and immoral, but good people cheat just as bad people cheat ... and all for various reasons.

This is regardless of what kind of person Odeon himself actually is.

Concerning the main argument here, I couldn't care less. Do personal attacks all you want if it makes your panties wet. I personally don't get much joy out of it especially for the lulz.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on January 01, 2012, 04:01:14 AM
@Callaway. I do think personal attacks are OK here. I cant see Pees vids ATM though. Posting from phone.

This site has always been full of personal attacks. I have made some myself. Some I regret, and some I dont.

On a free speech site, people have to have the right to say what they want. You might not like what they say, but they have the right to say it.

I think we have to consider how we would treat someone who is not popular on the site. Personal attacks are tolerated, if not encouraged, on some of the bigger dicks on the site.
Odeon does not deserve special treatment, and his behaviour has been terrible recently, so Im not surprised hes attracted attention.

His behaviour has been terrible recently? I must have missed this. I know he disagreed with you, but terrible behaviour? Link me up Butterflies. I want to see these examples of terrible behaviour.

As for the interest in Spasticity, I dunno, I see more of an interest not in the site but in the salespeople marketting the site and how they do it. I don't think anyone really gives a shit about Spasticity in the way you are implying.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on January 01, 2012, 04:49:05 AM
@Callaway. I do think personal attacks are OK here. I cant see Pees vids ATM though. Posting from phone.

This site has always been full of personal attacks. I have made some myself. Some I regret, and some I dont.

On a free speech site, people have to have the right to say what they want. You might not like what they say, but they have the right to say it.

I think we have to consider how we would treat someone who is not popular on the site. Personal attacks are tolerated, if not encouraged, on some of the bigger dicks on the site.
Odeon does not deserve special treatment, and his behaviour has been terrible recently, so Im not surprised hes attracted attention.

Personal attacks like this, including personal information and violating personal privacy, are not OK, Butterflies, and they will never be OK here. They violate the TOS and I'm not going to tolerate them on a site I pay for. It's not going to happen, not in the name of free speech, not in the name of anything.

What is this terrible behaviour I've been guilty of recently? Did I post your personal information, or Schleed's, or someone else's? Did I spread untrue personal information? What, exactly, did I do?

If you think me and Sir Les quoting posts and interpreting those posts differently than you or Schleed or, for that matter, Peaguy, is on par with this bullshit, you have a serious problem, but one that you will need to handle elsewhere.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on January 01, 2012, 04:49:59 AM
Just playing the messenger. He requested it to be posted.

Post something like that again and you are out.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on January 01, 2012, 06:25:35 AM
@Callaway. I do think personal attacks are OK here. I cant see Pees vids ATM though. Posting from phone.

This site has always been full of personal attacks. I have made some myself. Some I regret, and some I dont.

On a free speech site, people have to have the right to say what they want. You might not like what they say, but they have the right to say it.

I think we have to consider how we would treat someone who is not popular on the site. Personal attacks are tolerated, if not encouraged, on some of the bigger dicks on the site.
Odeon does not deserve special treatment, and his behaviour has been terrible recently, so Im not surprised hes attracted attention.

Personal attacks like this, including personal information and violating personal privacy, are not OK, Butterflies, and they will never be OK here. They violate the TOS and I'm not going to tolerate them on a site I pay for. It's not going to happen, not in the name of free speech, not in the name of anything.

What is this terrible behaviour I've been guilty of recently? Did I post your personal information, or Schleed's, or someone else's? Did I spread untrue personal information? What, exactly, did I do?

If you think me and Sir Les quoting posts and interpreting those posts differently than you or Schleed or, for that matter, Peaguy, is on par with this bullshit, you have a serious problem, but one that you will need to handle elsewhere.

I don't think she believes what she is saying because only a moron would, and i don't believe she is a moron.

I don't think she can actually make any case for the "terrible behaviour" she is iinferring. She knows it is bullshit, so do i and so do you and so does everyone on here. That is OK. So long as we all know it is bullshit, all good.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Zippo on January 01, 2012, 06:42:08 AM
IntensitySquared: Odeon, you son of a Finnish whore! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZFrezItQik#ws)

you a little drunk there schleed?

That isn't Scheed, that's Peaguy.

meh, hardly know either of them so... close enough.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Frolic_Fun on January 01, 2012, 08:16:35 AM
Just playing the messenger. He requested it to be posted.

Post something like that again and you are out.

Always twisting the TOS to your agenda, I see. Hostgator does not mention revealing personal info as a violation of TOS, especially when it's not done by the person posting.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Parts on January 01, 2012, 08:41:18 AM
So your site slows down and your brilliant plan it to come here and post personal things you know are hurtful even though that person has done nothing to you?  That is the definition of an attention whoring scumbag.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on January 01, 2012, 09:01:07 AM
Just playing the messenger. He requested it to be posted.

Post something like that again and you are out.

Always twisting the TOS to your agenda, I see. Hostgator does not mention revealing personal info as a violation of TOS, especially when it's not done by the person posting.

I won't pay for the privilege of having my personal privacy violated. End of story. Don't like it ? Post elsewhere.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on January 01, 2012, 09:30:46 AM
It seems to me that it's a S2 team effort since Pea made the YouTube as a nasty personal attack and Schleed (who is the owner and admin of S2) reposted it here.  Do you think personal attacks like this are acceptable? 

I could be misreading you here.
Are you implying all members of spasticity are in on this? , or are you referring to a ""S2 team effort" between Pea and Schleed?

If it's the latter , I think thats pretty unfair considering , I , Bodie , CBC and other S2 members have stayed out of this.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on January 01, 2012, 09:46:04 AM
It seems to me that it's a S2 team effort since Pea made the YouTube as a nasty personal attack and Schleed (who is the owner and admin of S2) reposted it here.  Do you think personal attacks like this are acceptable? 

I could be misreading you here.
Are you implying all members of spasticity are in on this? , or are you referring to a ""S2 team effort" between Pea and Schleed?

If it's the latter , I think thats pretty unfair considering , I , Bodie , CBC and other S2 members have stayed out of this.

I think Callaway is referring to the first alternative--you have indeed stayed out of this thing.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Zippo on January 01, 2012, 09:51:07 AM
It seems to me that it's a S2 team effort since Pea made the YouTube as a nasty personal attack and Schleed (who is the owner and admin of S2) reposted it here.  Do you think personal attacks like this are acceptable? 

I could be misreading you here.
Are you implying all members of spasticity are in on this? , or are you referring to a ""S2 team effort" between Pea and Schleed?

If it's the latter , I think thats pretty unfair considering , I , Bodie , CBC and other S2 members have stayed out of this.

i second with squid on this one, though i have maybe four posts. gotta say i tend to lurk at spacticity rather than actually post.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on January 01, 2012, 10:06:52 AM
i dont know wtf is goin on here. pea has done a video about this place. i cant watch any vids on my phone. yes i like people i think r cool. or rather, i think people i like r cool
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Callaway on January 01, 2012, 11:25:52 AM
It seems to me that it's a S2 team effort since Pea made the YouTube as a nasty personal attack and Schleed (who is the owner and admin of S2) reposted it here.  Do you think personal attacks like this are acceptable? 

I could be misreading you here.
Are you implying all members of spasticity are in on this? , or are you referring to a ""S2 team effort" between Pea and Schleed?

If it's the latter , I think thats pretty unfair considering , I , Bodie , CBC and other S2 members have stayed out of this.

Pea could not have posted a video claiming malicious things that violated Odeon's privacy here, so he posted it on Spasticity and requested that it be reposted here.  The admin and owner of Spasticity decided to oblige him after seeing the video, I think to stir up some of the drama he claims he wants to avoid.  I believe that makes it a Spasticity team effort.  Just because I think it's a team effort does not imply that I believe every single member of Spasticity cooperated in this.  You are correct that you, Bodie, CBC, Zippo, etc. did not do that. 
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on January 01, 2012, 11:31:17 AM
why call it a spasticity team efffort tho? would it an I2 team effort if you and [random i2 member] did something and no one else on here was involved/knew about it?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Zippo on January 01, 2012, 11:41:04 AM
why call it a spasticity team efffort tho? would it an I2 team effort if you and [random i2 member] did something and no one else on here was involved/knew about it?

adam i think we can both agree that callaway was not including us in it nor trying to slander us... just stating that two of the members from one forum were working as a team to invade odeons privicy or something like that [i like to stay away from drama so i dont have the prequil to this]

any ways. i doubt she ment any insult to you me squiddy or cbc and such and so theres no use getting in a fret over it
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on January 01, 2012, 11:43:34 AM
im not getting in a fret over anything, dont care much either way tbh. just passing time while waiting for my mate to come back

im def not insulted tho. i dont think callaway could insult me if she tried lol
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on January 01, 2012, 11:48:11 AM
... so he posted it on Spasticity and requested that it be reposted here.  The admin and owner of Spasticity decided to oblige him after seeing the video, I think to stir up some of the drama he claims he wants to avoid.  I believe that makes it a Spasticity team effort.

^^^ this, contradicts this vvv

Quote
Just because I think it's a team effort does not imply that I believe every single member of Spasticity cooperated in this.  You are correct that you, Bodie, CBC, Zippo, etc. did not do that.

2 people cooperating doesn't make something a Spasticity effort any more than Squid and Butterflies' trolling of WP was an I2 effort.   :facepalm2:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on January 01, 2012, 11:50:11 AM
exactly ^


the "spactisity" part of "spasticity team effort" is a pointless addition used to manipulate the truth
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Squidusa on January 01, 2012, 11:58:44 AM
It seems to me that it's a S2 team effort since Pea made the YouTube as a nasty personal attack and Schleed (who is the owner and admin of S2) reposted it here.  Do you think personal attacks like this are acceptable? 

I could be misreading you here.
Are you implying all members of spasticity are in on this? , or are you referring to a ""S2 team effort" between Pea and Schleed?

If it's the latter , I think thats pretty unfair considering , I , Bodie , CBC and other S2 members have stayed out of this.

Pea could not have posted a video claiming malicious things that violated Odeon's privacy here, so he posted it on Spasticity and requested that it be reposted here.  The admin and owner of Spasticity decided to oblige him after seeing the video, I think to stir up some of the drama he claims he wants to avoid.  I believe that makes it a Spasticity team effort.  Just because I think it's a team effort does not imply that I believe every single member of Spasticity cooperated in this.  You are correct that you, Bodie, CBC, Zippo, etc. did not do that.

Ok then fair enough , maybe just a poor choice of words and a misunderstanding on my part.

Thanks for clearing it up.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Calavera on January 01, 2012, 12:05:55 PM
She probably thought at first it involved more than just Schleed and Pea without knowing who the others might have been.

Please not another semantic argument.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on January 01, 2012, 12:25:59 PM
Please not another semantic argument.

Semantics are important in this case because Callaway tried to paint all the members of Spasticity with a broad brush.

I wasn't involved in any of this either, nor do I want to become involved.

I was hoping that all the pointless bickering here would subside, but a few members here keep stiring the pot.

ZOMG!!! Is there an "Intensity team effort" to stir up shit??   :autism:    :autism:    :orly:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on January 01, 2012, 12:37:23 PM
 :facepalm2:

Not the Odeon cheating stuff again. That's some serious sour grapes, to dredge that up out of the past because what? Spasticity is failing?

Ok granted, it's kind of shitty to rub that failure in Schleed's face when he comes back here. But the Hostgator TOS states that offending material won't be removed unless a USA court of law actually finds it to be defamatory:
Quote
Sites hosted on Hostgator.com's service(s) are regulated only by U.S. law. Given this fact, and pursuant to Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, we do not remove allegedly defamatory material from domains hosted on our service(s). The only exception to this rule is if the material has been found to be defamatory by a court, as evidenced by a court order. Hostgator.com is not in a position to investigate and validate or invalidate the veracity of individual defamation claims, which is why we rely on the legal system and courts to determine whether or not material is indeed considered defamatory. In any case in which a court order indicates material is defamatory, libelous, or slanderous in nature; we will disable access to the material. Similarly, in any case in which a US Court has placed an injunction against specified content or material; we will comply and remove or disable access to the material in question.

I didn't see the video so I don't know what the personal information was, but a video actually seems a lot less harmful than written words. For one big reason: it's not google-able.

Seriously though, has anybody looked at the official Intensity TOS lately? It includes gems such as this:
Quote
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.
Wait, we're not allowed to post any sexually oriented material? Or material that's inaccurate, profane, or hateful? Somebody better spread the word before the agents in dark glasses come knocking....

We really need to get this shit updated. Preferably amending the legalese with what's actually enforced, something short and sweet like "Don't violate the Hostgator TOS and don't post the webmaster's personal info."
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on January 01, 2012, 12:43:07 PM

Seriously though, has anybody looked at the official Intensity TOS lately? It includes gems such as this:
Quote
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.
Wait, we're not allowed to post any sexually oriented material? Or material that's inaccurate, profane, or hateful? Somebody better spread the word before the agents in dark glasses come knocking....

We really need to get this shit updated. Preferably amending the legalese with what's actually enforced, something short and sweet like "Don't violate the Hostgator TOS and don't post the webmaster's personal info."

 :agreed:

The TOS should be updated to reflect what is actually enforced.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Calavera on January 01, 2012, 12:46:09 PM
Odeon did do some form of special pleading there. And there are better reasons to state other than that he pays for the forum. This "I didn't pay for the privilege of having my privacy violated" is weak and not a good excuse to use at all as an admin/moderator.

As for the Intensity TOS, he can change it via the coding of the forum. That's what I did with my previous forum, lol.

Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on January 01, 2012, 12:48:56 PM
What would you consider a better reason? IMO it's more honest for Odeon to state he gets special privileges than to phrase it as some pretense of equality.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on January 01, 2012, 12:53:30 PM
Odeon did do some form of special pleading there. And there are better reasons to state other than that he pays for the forum. This "I didn't pay for the privilege of having my privacy violated" is weak and not a good excuse to use at all as an admin/moderator.

What would you consider a better reason? IMO it's more honest for Odeon to state he gets special privileges than to phrase it as some pretense of equality.

I think dropping docs could be a bannable offence since it potentially puts a member at risk of RL harm.

In order to do that though, you'd have to post a full legal name along with an address.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Calavera on January 01, 2012, 12:54:03 PM
What would you consider a better reason? IMO it's more honest for Odeon to state he gets special privileges than to phrase it as some pretense of equality.


No need for pretense of equality anyway. As an admin, he should instead argue how Intensity does have rules and how it's against the rules of Intensity to post unsolicited private info in the forum. I mean, this rule wasn't made up just today. This was going on from way before this drama started.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on January 01, 2012, 12:54:40 PM
What was actually in the video?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Calavera on January 01, 2012, 12:58:24 PM
What was actually in the video?

Nah, not discussing that anymore. You know the story anyway.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on January 01, 2012, 12:59:34 PM
What was actually in the video?

Peaguy used odeon's first name and talked about odeon's affair with Lucifer.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'andersom' on January 01, 2012, 01:02:37 PM
^I am getting the impression that you think Pentagram and richard are "uncool" and you invited them despite this. It bothers me. It is like pity or something. I am getting that because you have explicitly stated that you invited them instead of simply saying nothing about it.

You word what was boggling in my mind.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on January 01, 2012, 01:10:26 PM
^I am getting the impression that you think Pentagram and richard are "uncool" and you invited them despite this. It bothers me. It is like pity or something. I am getting that because you have explicitly stated that you invited them instead of simply saying nothing about it.

You word what was boggling in my mind.

 :agreed:

Of course they're uncool. They're a couple of spazzes.

I wonder why it came across so strongly as pity.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: 'andersom' on January 01, 2012, 01:26:27 PM
What was actually in the video?

Just reading this thread now after letting it slide for weeks.

Name, address of Odeon, true or made up, don't know about that, was in one of the vids I saw, + made up allegations.

The other was rehashing old stuff. Nothing new, nothing exciting or interesting.

Don't know which of these two was removed.







Somehow this says nothing about S2 for me. About two members, sure. Not about the whole place.
Not taking the value of I2 by the thoughts or behaviours of two of its members either. :P

Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Pyraxis on January 01, 2012, 01:32:41 PM
Oh FFS. There aren't enough facepalms for this.

You know what makes me sick? Pea went around at one point asking for people's names and addresses so he could send them Christmas cards. I can only assume that's where he got Odeon's from. This is a hell of a way to repay the offer of benevolence that a Christmas card exchange implies.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on January 01, 2012, 02:22:08 PM
pea HAS used odeons full name and an address im assuming is odeons too. does he not know this yet?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Scrapheap on January 01, 2012, 02:30:43 PM
pea HAS used odeons full name and an address im assuming is odeons too. does he not know this yet?

What? in one of his vids? or on another site?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Al Swearegen on January 01, 2012, 03:36:22 PM
... so he posted it on Spasticity and requested that it be reposted here.  The admin and owner of Spasticity decided to oblige him after seeing the video, I think to stir up some of the drama he claims he wants to avoid.  I believe that makes it a Spasticity team effort.

^^^ this, contradicts this vvv

Quote
Just because I think it's a team effort does not imply that I believe every single member of Spasticity cooperated in this.  You are correct that you, Bodie, CBC, Zippo, etc. did not do that.

2 people cooperating doesn't make something a Spasticity effort any more than Squid and Butterflies' trolling of WP was an I2 effort.   :facepalm2:

Yes instead of saying a "Spasticity team effort" what she should have said is this

"Pea (a member of Spasticity) made a video (and showed it at Spasticity) It was then taken over to be posted on Intensity by Shleed (the owner/admin of Spasticicty) and the action was backed by Butterflies (another member of Spasticity) BUT it was not a team effort but rather an involved interaction between a select few members and Admin of Spasticity."

That is what she should have said, just to make it clear and avoid any sense of untoward connection that could be misconstrued if someone were to look for it.

Are you fucking joking?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Adam on January 01, 2012, 04:16:06 PM
one of his vids. i hav no way of gettin the link as im back on my phone now. but yeh it was just a pic (of odeon?) with text over it - name , address and something about girls? check the same yt account n it should be there
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on January 01, 2012, 05:13:48 PM
Oh FFS. There aren't enough facepalms for this.

You know what makes me sick? Pea went around at one point asking for people's names and addresses so he could send them Christmas cards. I can only assume that's where he got Odeon's from. This is a hell of a way to repay the offer of benevolence that a Christmas card exchange implies.

that is how, yes.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Icequeen on January 02, 2012, 10:20:33 AM
Pea needs to get a life.

Two years later and he's still beating the same drum. :yawn:

Get over it, who the fuck cares?
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: Parts on January 02, 2012, 11:29:35 AM
Pea needs to get a life.

Two years later and he's still beating the same drum. :yawn:

Get over it, who the fuck cares?

Agreed this has entered creepy stalker territory
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on January 02, 2012, 05:03:59 PM
'Cool'   hehehe!  I strive to be 'uncool'   didn't you guys know?   hot from the Paris catwalk i can confirm that  a) grey is the new black   and   b) uncool is the new cool     :zoinks:


I am with scrap when he say's he had nothing to do with this.   I did not either.   In fact,  i knew fuck all about it until today!   I have not been on either site much at all over xmas,  so i only started reading stuff this morning.       Posting personal shit about someone is not something i would do.  Nor would i condone it,  or cheer on someone who did.

I say very little on my facebook account mainly due to being tied to people in this way.  For example a member of my family,  or an old friend,  or someone who done me a favour in the past,  they might be having an argument and expect me to join them.  ?? Doesn't matter if i agree or disagree i feel it necessary to back them up due to my past ties with them.  It sucks.  But it is true.   Am happy to say i don't have such ties here,  or at spasticity.    It means i am at liberty to speak my mind and say what i want.   It makes it quite difficult to be part of a group and i actually resent being 'banded' in with other people.

I would be the very last person to attack someone for having an affair (me being mistress material) and i think Calavera was right what he said earlier. 

I will continue to post on both forums until told otherwise. 
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on January 02, 2012, 05:10:09 PM
You can't be anything other than cool, Bodie. Sorry.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on January 02, 2012, 05:13:29 PM
Nooooooooooooooo

 :'( don't paint me with that 'cool' brush!
 :hahaha:
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: "couldbecousin" on January 02, 2012, 05:14:33 PM
You can't be anything other than cool, Bodie. Sorry.

 It's true, Bodie, unfortunately you must shoulder the burden of coolness!  8)
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: odeon on January 02, 2012, 05:16:18 PM
You can't be anything other than cool, Bodie. Sorry.

 It's true, Bodie, unfortunately you must shoulder the burden of coolness!  8)

Some are chosen, as simple as that.
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: bodie on January 02, 2012, 05:21:03 PM
*wonder's if it is the odd socks ?   Actually my niece wears odd sox on purpose?  wtf?  must be cool :M
Title: Re: Spasticity 2.0
Post by: McGiver on January 03, 2012, 10:04:21 AM
Shored, I will join your webshow if you meet one simple challenge.

Post a picture of someone homelier than you.