Missed that post too. This is the one that was noticed, once realizing why you felt the need to respond.
Eeeeewww! 
I think I read some where that Alfonso was into having sex with dogs. Is that true?
No I am not making it up or creating rumour. (well yes I am creating rumour but not making it up)
Certainly you are correct, and no laws or tos were broken.
No and therefore no Rules either. But you DID say that i had broken them and knew that I did and inferred that i would and accept the favouritism for not being harshly dealt with for purposely breaking rules. You also said that I would be unwilling to admit/confess to any wrong doing.
You can stop putting words in my mouth. Said you have stepped over the line of my understanding of the rules and the lines these rules should be clarified, stated the personal belief that you know what topics are unacceptable for discussion, and said I didn't expect you to admit it.
I have not yet started putting words in your mouth.
If you are wanting to accuse me of that as well as knowingly breaking rules and and hiding/not admitting/deceiving (or however you view it) and accepting special treatment from rules I had knowingly broken......then maybe putting words in your mouth may be a acceptable way to debate with you. At the moment I don't believe I have.
These are more than just mere opinion. Mere opinion wouldn't state such things about me as absolutes. You did and they were not ordinary things they were things against every action i have done on the board and every value I have. So it was not a speculation born of what I have done but rather what i haven't and so i ask why you were to make such judgments and why you stated them so absolute.
In the matter of fact base statements, yes, this is my posting style, to express opinion as matter of fact. This is true and won't change. This is my opinion in this matter. You know what topics are unacceptable, you will be treated differently by the admins than marx, and implying/accusing members of engaging in paedophilia or bestiality crosses the line of what's considered acceptable topics on this site.
I know what I believe are acceptable topics.
Here is one. What was the subject matter and how well was it received by members here (not YOU specifically but others)
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18251.msg804929.html#msg804929\The second video look familiar? What was the subject matter in that second one?
I know, I know. These were simply comedy and meant to be in bad taste and was not really serious about bestiality or murder. Yes it was well received by the members here but that was........NO. No it wasn't.
Calling someone a "Dogfucker" is not nice. Calling someone a "cocksucker" is not nice or calling someone an "essayist" is not nice. These things are neither unacceptable for discussion on here nor rule breaking.
That video is not unacceptable for discussion nor was it breaking rules.
So what does that leave me with?
<====== I don't think anyone has had a hard time with him.
No wait a minute, there was that post I quoted from years ago. Yes I remembered I had come across an old existing post on this site by a previous member as to Cartman having sex with dogs. I did not write it and I simply quoted it and later said I was not serious about its content. I was actually more serious about the content of him confessing to threatening 15 year old girls and that is how i came across the posts.
But did the post break any rules? Nope.
But that is not the new measure is it? It is topics unacceptable for discussion....not breaking rules...we have moved the goal post. I guess too but stating what is and is not acceptable for discussion, you mean to you, and you define in what way?
I mean if me stating I had found something already posted on here that was (true or not) embarrassing (which I don't really think he cares about) and suggests he has sex with dogs, that is in your mind unacceptable BUT you MAY be fine with the boys from Doug Anthony All Stars singing about having sex with "dogs in the park, after dark, when the moon is a pie in the sky".
OR you may not but others may not mind. OR it may be that others are fine with both the video and that post BECAUSE it breaks no rules. OR they may think it funny or irrelevant or boring or stupid but not necessarily unacceptable.
What do you think? I think if I was posting dog sex things in volume (kinda like "Cartman or you would notice" kinda volume) that may warrant at the very least calling me out on my excessiveness. OR If I was really graphic in my descriptions? OR if I was serious? Or if I actually posting Animal/human porn - defined bestiality? Then yes I may very see you had a point in this unacceptable for discussion.
This is not a tea room and I don't know what your measuring tool is or whether you are happy to lump bestiality as all in - suggestion or graphic image same ballpark? Going on and on, or a couple of quips?
None of this really is a big deal. I think you were wrong, perhaps for the right intention, pointing out Alfonso ought not be banned (which I agree with). I don't care that you have changed the goalposts either.
What I don't like is after all I have been and have not been here, The thought that you would think that I would wimp out of owning my actions, or defending myself, and that I would leach off goodwill of people here to protect me from possible fallout, or lie about what I thought. I defend everything I do, and back myself, and accept when I consider I do wrong. I am not slow to apologise If I think I am in the wrong, and I hide behind no one. Never.
The thought that your opinion of me being a person that would is disappointing. Kind of "No Al, you never do those things BUT with this situation, I automatically suspected you naturally would. Just my opinion" That is how it read to me.
The Alfonso having sex with dogs? Someone else said it. I thought it was funny and reposted it. That was a few days ago. Were it not for regurgitating it now I probably would not have even gone there again. not out of a want to avoid trouble but because it was a quick laugh and the thread moved on.
