in theDuke866's soap box

the jewish plots to
1. pull off 9/11, and place the blame on arabs
2. eliminate the white race
3. hide the fact that vikings are the real "Isrealites"
4. force the USA to give up its sovereignty (after canada gets in to NAFTA, whenever that happens)

are worth discussing

but if you ask how the republican candidates for president in 08 are going to distance themselves from the monkey-fucking-a-football presidency, you are informed by the moderator that your ideas are "retarded and not really worth discussing."

i think this is worth taking a look at
this is not trolling
this is an honest thread that i would like to debate

5/29/2006 8:58:26 PM

ibtl

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 9:00 PM. Reason : er... ibtb]

5/29/2006 9:00:02 PM

It was a pretty lame topic, though just as valid as the conspiracy bs. Be more creative. You've got 2 more years to get all worked up about the presidential election.

5/29/2006 9:08:57 PM

5/29/2006 9:29:09 PM

ibtb

5/29/2006 10:09:41 PM

how was it a lame topic???

5/29/2006 10:11:02 PM

5/29/2006 10:18:25 PM

i'd appreciate it if you folks wouldn't troll this

5/29/2006 10:26:32 PM

i've already addressed this in the other thread

and if you'll notice, it's not like i locked it.


the subject of the 2008 election is certainly worth discussing. "how the republican candidates for president in 08 are going to distance themselves from the monkey-fucking-a-football presidency" is also worth discussing.


Stating that the '08 GOP candidates will all be Bush clones is retarded.

5/29/2006 10:30:27 PM

I must say you have a point, however this is run kinda like that english class where you get a C if you disagree with the teacher's view point.

5/29/2006 10:31:18 PM

no it's not.

how many threads have i locked that weren't either total chit-chat or blatant trolling?

5/29/2006 10:32:26 PM

1. i'm no longer entirely sure salisburyboy isn't trolling
he has already admitted that he is not the person who signed up for salisburyboy

2. you can honestly say that the majority of candidates vying for the ticker tape at the RNC are not at least easily paintable as "Bush-ish"?

hell, mccain is jockeying to be more bush-ish, he lost all my respect when he sold out flip-flopped and spoke at jerry falwell's school

5/29/2006 10:35:38 PM

i think salisburyboy isnt trolling just because how could somebody dedicate that many hours and hours and hours and hours of posting just to be a troll

5/30/2006 11:16:57 AM

someone with commitment, thats who

you'll thank him one day

5/30/2006 11:18:15 AM

seriously

if you think john mccain is a moderate

watch the responses to his graduation speech at the New School, and then watch the response at Liberty

headline news is running shit about potential candidates giving speeches in key states, such as mitt romney (purple gov from mass) speaking in iowa, hil speaking at 3 schools in key locations, etc etc etc

5/30/2006 3:28:14 PM

Quote :

"Stating that the '08 GOP candidates will all be Bush clones is retarded."

what... the... fuck?

Are you serrious dude? You let this biggot blast anything he wants in here and troll the whole damned board and you say that because he believes in the shit, he is entitled to post... and you halt the expansion on ideas based upon your slim definition of retarded?

I think you're upside down on the retarded meter.

5/30/2006 4:09:40 PM

^^I never said anything about McCain being a moderate. I just said that he isn't a Bush clone, which is pretty tough to dispute.

^Was I correct? Yes. Did I lock his thread? No, I explained to him why he was wrong. I think you're upside down on the mountains out of molehills meter.


and for the record, salisburyboy's threads are retarded and not worth discussing, but I'm not going to suspend him because a bunch of crybabies can't figure out how to not click on his threads.

[Edited on May 30, 2006 at 4:49 PM. Reason : asdfasfas]

5/30/2006 4:41:55 PM

I don't know, I agreed with letting Salisburyboy stick around when I wasn't aware of what a big eyesore he is.

I'm glad the vigilante trolling has stopped (at least by way of parody thread eyesores), but now the absense of it makes his presence more notably repugnant again.

He doesn't do anything for intellectual discourse and discussion here. He should be banned.

5/30/2006 5:10:13 PM

mcdanger for soap box mod

5/30/2006 5:11:32 PM

THE OVER THROW OF THE DUKE!

5/30/2006 6:47:35 PM

Quote :

"He doesn't do anything for intellectual discourse and discussion here. He should be banned."

have you totally lost your mind?

listen to what you just said.

if the soap box, on the whole, wants me to be the thought police, I suppose I can do it, but drawing the line is guaranteed to be ugly (even if you can stomach such a practice in principle).

I mean, how stupid or uninformed do you have to be? what about political noobs? a few of them will eventually gain significant insight, but almost all will contribute little in the way of intellectual discourse and discussion for a while, and most never will.

5/30/2006 7:42:01 PM

Uh, have you lost yours?

Wow those italics felt good. I should be sensationalist and dramatic all the time (THERE I GO AGAIN).

Nobody's asking you to be the thought police. We're asking for a forum in which intellectual discourse and discussion is the norm, not chit-chat spam threads. He saps this forum with his tripe -- people feel the need to respond because having ideas like that circulated unchallenged on here would be embarassing to most sensible people.

If you can't see the difference between him and other hypothetical cases you dredge up from the hyperbole-vault, then I seriously doubt your ability to moderate this forum sensibly.

5/30/2006 8:21:53 PM

well you already claim to know what people are thinking

thought police isnt that far off

5/30/2006 8:27:23 PM

gotta love the soapbox

5/30/2006 8:28:07 PM

It's not even about having nothing to offer... it's about having the opposite effect on the forum.

5/30/2006 8:29:28 PM

Quote :

"people feel the need to respond because having ideas like that circulated unchallenged on here would be embarassing to most sensible people."

i couldn't have said it better

5/30/2006 8:58:22 PM

this thread amuses me

5/30/2006 8:59:27 PM

I have to agree with Duke about mcdanger being retarded.

sorry mcdanger.

5/30/2006 10:49:41 PM

Hey look another Garner red neck rolling out to support salisburyboy

wheres bethaleigh

5/30/2006 11:11:23 PM

I was actualy confused by theDuke866's dismissal of rs141's thread, http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=411709. The thread in question seemed somewhat legitimate and less absurd than plenty of other threads started, including but not limited to those threads started by salisburyboy.

Am I crazy?

[Edited on May 30, 2006 at 11:28 PM. Reason : ?]

5/30/2006 11:23:40 PM

I'm sorry, I still dont see the big deal. This is about as lame as trying to get esgargs terminated. He's dumb, he's been debated. No one is coming on here and leaving due to that kind of garbage. He's been around forever and definately is not the cause of soap box being more shitty than usual. It was fine a month or so ago.

5/30/2006 11:24:32 PM

^I think I agree. I haven't had any problems ignoring salisburyboy in the past couple years.

But sometimes it's fun to bttt all his threads to remind people that this cat is crazy and not worth responding to.

5/30/2006 11:27:24 PM

i mean ive read a thread and was about to respond before i realized who it was by, but i just close it and go on with my life.

i get the embarassment argument, but who are we are we impressing? have you been to chit chat recently...i dont think anyone takes this site all that seriously.

5/30/2006 11:30:01 PM

i don't think i've ever liked mcdanger as much as i do in this thread

5/30/2006 11:35:59 PM

theDukeVag

5/31/2006 9:49:50 AM

if you just move his threads to another section (chit chat perhaps), that will solve the problem

5/31/2006 11:56:56 AM

they don't belong in chit chat, in my opinion

the "problem" is manufactured. all you have to do is not click on his threads. alternatively, you can just make serious replies (although I view it as a waste of time, and not particularly interesting. I'd rather debate real-world matters of consequence) instead of trolling his threads, thereby constantly bttting them.

Quote :

"I was actualy confused by theDuke866's dismissal of rs141's thread"

apparently this is more subtle than it seems to me, because a lot of people still don't "get it".

that thread was no different from a salisburyboy thread in the sense that the premise was pretty stupid and the poster is, for lack of a more creative adjective, wrong. my first response was to say "fuck it, not worth discussing" (as opposed to threads put forth by people like Gamecat, Kris, etc that I may disagree with, but as a matter of personal philosophy rather than becaure they have no idea what they're talking about and are flat-out wrong.)

salisburyboy falls into that latter category (well, he's very well informed, but still flat-out wrong. it's not just a matter of not seeing eye-to-eye. I mean, the Illuminati didn't get together with the Jews and fly around in black helicopters to implant mind control chips, cause hurricanes, and blow up the WTC. Period.), but I personally don't bother posting in his threads and stating as such anymore.

It's not like I locked the thread you're talking about. I basically just said "You have no idea what you're talking about, and this thread is stupid"--and he didn't, and it was...and then I didn't lock the thread (I actually came back later and explained to him why I said what I said the first time).

Then the salisburyboy-censorship throws their standard temper tantrum, saying "WELL, SALISBURYBOY'S THREADS ARE STUPID, TOO! PROBABLY EVEN MORE STUPID--AND YOU DON'T LOCK HIS THREADS AND SUSPEND HIM!"

Well no shit...and I don't disagree (except that I at least respect, for lack of a better word, the fact that he at least is informed, although the fact that he draws such backasswards conclusions with his greater wealth of information isn't really to his credit). But what do you want me to do? If a majority really want me to go through this place and regulate, locking everything except insightful contributions, I can do it. It'll make Sherman's march to the sea look like a campfire.

I don't think that's the answer. I think the answer is for people to stop fucking worrying about one poster who isn't hurting anything and can be simply ignored, particularly in light of the fact that making it a pissing match isn't going to get what you want. I'm not going to suspend salisburyboy for being wrong, unless you want me to extend the same standard to the entire forum (and I'm telling you, that's not what you want).

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 12:27 PM. Reason : asdf]

5/31/2006 12:02:16 PM

Quote :

"yesterday george bush, who is a dong..."

5/31/2006 12:05:35 PM

Quote :

"you can just make serious replies (although I view it as a waste of time"

Quote :

"you can just make serious replies (although I view it as a waste of time"

Quote :

"you can just make serious replies (although I view it as a waste of time"

Quote :

"you can just make serious replies (although I view it as a waste of time"

why the fuck do you support him then

i'm beginning to think he makes more fucking sense than you

5/31/2006 2:39:45 PM

My true opinion:

theDuke866 votes Republican. He is ashamed of President Bush, and he is ashamed that he voted for him. He is scared by the fact that the liberals were right that time. That fucks with his universe.

So when some newbie punk comes along and suggests that perhaps Bush is more representative of Republicans than theDuke866 is comfortable with, he calls the thread retarded and not worth discussing.

I understand his reaction. It's gotta be really unnerving to know that the party you've bought into is placing more emphasis on moral values and the like, leaving you behind to look like a giant ass.

5/31/2006 2:49:14 PM

exactly

i still don't think the original thread was "retarded"

5/31/2006 3:01:55 PM

i don't support his views in the least

i just don't support banning him from the forum because I/we/most everyone disagrees with him. that's the dumbest fucking idea i've heard in a long time--it's right up there with illuminati jews and their mind control conspiracies.


everyone complained that he hijacked other people's threads and constantly bombarded the forum with his own threads because you're all too chickenshit to come out and say "We don't like this guy, and we're going to single him out to be kicked off the wolfweb because nobody agrees with what he has to say."

well, i took care of the original (legitimate) complaints, but now it's clear that those things weren't really the goal.

Stop acting like a bunch of fucking children who don't want the unpopular kid on their team. Either debate him or ignore him, but stop trolling and stop throwing stupid fucking hissy fits about it, because I'm not going to suspend him just because we all disagree with him. Ever. Period.

5/31/2006 3:03:32 PM

^YOU JUST SAID IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO ATTEMPT TO "DEBATE" HIM

PS

Quote :

"you're all too chickenshit to come out and say "We don't like this guy, and we're going to single him out to be kicked off the wolfweb because nobody agrees with what he has to say.""

I'm pretty sure one of us has said that almost verbatim at least once

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 3:11 PM. Reason : `]

5/31/2006 3:10:50 PM

^^, ^^^

No, that original post was pretty clearly the product of someone who is mindlessly attached to a certain set of political beliefs without being "in the know" to any significant extent.

the idea that all of the 2008 GOP candidates are Bush clones is stupid.


I voted for President Bush in 2000, which I would do again in a second based on his politics at the time versus those of Al Gore. Throughout the course of his first term, he ended up not practicing what he campaigned on in many cases. With that in mind, I'm not ashamed of voting for him in 2000. However, I didn't vote for him in 2004, although I guess I'd prefer him to Kerry (in the short term, at least...hard to say yet how much damage has been done to GOP politics for the future, although also hard to say if this will cause a major reallignment of the GOP that could usher in a new era of candidates more to my liking)

It's also not just the President. I'm pretty disillusioned with the entire GOP, and have been for some time. I fully understand that President Bush IS MUCH more representative of Republicans (at least those in power) than I'm comfortable with. I'll be the first to make that claim.


For the record, I vote probably 60% GOP, 40% Libertarian (with a Dem thrown in once in a blue moon).

5/31/2006 3:16:57 PM

sorry if i have been unclear, but i have been saying that among other things

5/31/2006 3:20:04 PM

nm...

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 3:21 PM. Reason : i give up]

5/31/2006 3:20:54 PM

Quote :

"YOU JUST SAID IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO ATTEMPT TO "DEBATE" HIM"

IT IS, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. IT'S BEEN DONE, 1000 TIMES. THERE IS NO POINT IN DOING IT ANYMORE.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO, THAT'S FINE.

I CHOOSE TO IGNORE SALISBURYBOY. THAT'S NOT OFFICIAL SOAP BOX POLICY.

if you want to ignore him, then i agree with you. his threads will fall from the first page, at worst to be bttt'd at the paltry rate of 1 per week.

if you want to debate him, that's fine--if people are debating him, there's no more case for getting rid of him.

all i'm saying is not to troll. it's annoying, it shits up the forum, and it is counterproductive to your goal of eliminating his presence, because it keeps his threads at the top.

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure one of us has said that almost verbatim at least once"

Yes, you're probably right--after you (collectively, not you personally) realized that the "he massively pollutes the forum" approach wouldn't get him banned completely.

regardless, that sentiment is ridiculous. i'm not going to single him out for suspension just because we all disagree with him. that's ridiculous in general, and particularly on a forum based on debating differing opinions.

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 3:24 PM. Reason : asdf]

5/31/2006 3:21:54 PM

^^^exactly

^brb

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 3:23 PM. Reason : `]

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 3:23 PM. Reason : `]

5/31/2006 3:22:50 PM

Quote :

"at worst to be bttt'd at the paltry rate of 1 per week."

he bttt'd two threads today

1 at 10 am
1 at 1 pm

neither of these thread had been replied to in nearly 8 hours

both of his bttt's were just to post random bullshit yet again in the form of

link

Quote :

"bolded headline conspiracy theory articleconspiracy theory articleconspiracy theory articleconspiracy theory articleconspiracy theory articleconspiracy theory articleconspiracy theory articleconspiracy theory articleconspiracy theory articleconspiracy theory articleconspiracy theory articleconspiracy theory articleconspiracy theory article"

5/31/2006 3:26:18 PM

dude

8 hours is a pretty damned short timespan

to be perfectly honest, i've never defined for him how "dead" a thread has to be for it to count as a BTTT (which counts as his one thread per week). i've never defined it because i haven't really had to--he's been pretty damned cooperative with me, and i've yet to see him try to take advantage of any loopholes in the deal and be a pain in the ass/cause any problems around here.

i gave him those general guidelines, and pretty much said "if you don't fuck with me, i won't fuck with you." so far, the handshake approach has negated the need for a detailed contract.

5/31/2006 3:33:37 PM