Haha I like how you always give yourself way more credit than you deserve

11/28/2007 10:14:51 AM

How much credit does he deserve?

11/28/2007 12:10:00 PM

Quote :

"hooksaw is a fucking idiot"

posted twice in the Bush Legacy thread by terpball.

1 day in the box.

11/28/2007 9:04:38 PM

http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=485359&page=6

Can you explain to me how hooksaw doesn't deserve a day in the box after his behavior on page 6 here?

He's merely asked to provide some evidence for his claims, and responds like so:

Quote :

"BTW, I see you attempting to build a case against me, boreon. It really is a bore. I guess masturbation's lost its fun, huh? "

Blatant trolling when people were merely asking for him to back up his claims.

11/28/2007 9:47:34 PM

so terpball gets suspended and hooksaw didn't

awesome

11/28/2007 9:57:30 PM

Seriously, if you're going to enforce these rules, enforce them fairly or don't do it at all.

11/28/2007 10:06:37 PM

See my most recent post in the other thread. Josh isn't the man for this job. Just give it to joe and be done with it. I mean for fucks sake, you have terrible short man syndrome that has blown up a massive ego to not want to give up your moderating powers when you clearly have nothing invested in this section.

11/28/2007 10:13:53 PM

I don't think Duke is a bad guy, I just think his definition of unbiased is probably closer to hooksaw's version than the rest of the world.

11/28/2007 10:15:24 PM

the fact that tree and hooksaw have never been suspended is pretty clear evidence of that

11/28/2007 10:16:58 PM

Quote :

"i will and do troll the shit out of you because you're just a clueless whiny cunt, and it's fun but I wasn't trolling you here, at first I was just pointing out how much of an unreasonable idiot you are but, go ahead and cry to vacuum it's not like anyone gives a shit"

nastoute

1 day in the box


and thinking about hooksaw...headed to the gym right now--don't have time to read through everything at the moment

11/28/2007 11:08:50 PM

Quote :

"http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=485359&page=6 Can you explain to me how hooksaw doesn't deserve a day in the box after his behavior on page 6 here? "

I don't know, I think statements like " I guess masturbation's lost its fun, huh? " go a long way to solve the problems people have been complaining about recently. It really helps to keep honest and genuine debate going.

11/29/2007 1:41:54 AM

Look, if that's all we're complaining about, I'll go ahead and suspend him for that, but it won't stop there. If you want me to suspend people for making snide remarks, I can do it, but you won't like how it turns out.

hooksaw is at least debating and discussing with people. He isn't all that good at it, in my opinion, either in terms of wielding logic and constructing/deconstructing an argument, or especially in terms of style (his style really grates on my nerves, too)...but we can't go suspending people for those things. Not everyone has the capacity to be a Smoker4 in ability and approach.

he does also tend to completely flip a bitch when anyone personally attacks him, but I haven't seen him instigating anything, at least in the last few days. If I see it, I'll shitcan him, but that hasn't happened so far.

11/29/2007 1:53:34 AM

^ Well, a snide comment + a snide comment = a comment like Nastoute made

I personally don't take TSB too seriously, so i view the sniping that goes back and forth as part of the game.

But, I can definitely see the point people are making that the way we do things around here can scare lots of people, even good people, away.

If we want to attract new posters, we all collectively would have to swallow our snide comments. Otherwise, it's just the status quo.

11/29/2007 2:01:26 AM

no, there is a substantial difference between what those two did.

11/29/2007 2:03:50 AM

Huh?

I was speaking generally there.

11/29/2007 2:05:56 AM

^^ why is terpball still suspended for such simple, stupid bullshit?

unsuspend him and he won't post in the soapbox anymore - jesus christ

11/29/2007 9:47:39 AM

i addressed your question in the chit chat thread.

and i'll note that you are ALREADY posting in the soap box under TWO different aliases (which is technically against site policy).

Quote :

"HUR thinks its normal to hit women on occasion that explains a lot about him and probably his troubled childhood "

TreeTwista10

1 day in the box

11/30/2007 3:36:54 AM

Well hell -- I'm glad you proved me wrong, Duke. Maybe this section's going to turn around after all.

11/30/2007 7:24:29 AM

Quote :

"^ Well, a snide comment + a snide comment = a comment like Nastoute made I personally don't take TSB too seriously, so i view the sniping that goes back and forth as part of the game. But, I can definitely see the point people are making that the way we do things around here can scare lots of people, even good people, away. If we want to attract new posters, we all collectively would have to swallow our snide comments. Otherwise, it's just the status quo."

Yeah, I don't really mind the snide comments so much as I mind when an entire thread becomes one snide comment after another, usually between two people, with zero discussion of the actual thread topic.

11/30/2007 8:07:07 AM

The thing that frustrates me the most is when someone is trying to debate and the other person refuses to provide any evidence for their argument. hooksaw does this all the time and claims he has a right to his beliefs and such, which he does, but at the same time these are forums for debate and discussion, I could care less what your personal beliefs are unless you're willing to discuss them in an intelligent manner.

11/30/2007 8:39:29 AM

heres my summary of nearly every hooksaw post i've read in the SB:

Quote :

" "

can he post without using that smiley (and the tone that comes along with it)?

11/30/2007 9:09:08 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, I don't really mind the snide comments so much as I mind when an entire thread becomes one snide comment after another, usually between two people, with zero discussion of the actual thread topic."

11/30/2007 10:38:17 AM

^^^ and the other "perpetual guardians of outrage"

Exchanges with me would go a lot better if some of you didn't pretend that you have a corner on the intelligent discussion market. You are not nearly as smart as you think you are.

^^

11/30/2007 12:18:06 PM

It's not about being intelligent it's about having a fucking education.

There are ways to argue, and ways not to argue. Knowing about them doesn't make you "intelligent" it makes you "informed."

11/30/2007 12:23:02 PM

^ Since I was responding to a specific post, you are fucking clearly uninformed.

Quote :

"I could care less what your personal beliefs are unless you're willing to discuss them in an intelligent manner."

SkankinMonky

11/30/2007 12:48:01 PM

Refusing to provide any evidence and saying you don't have to discuss things because they're your opinion is not 'intelligent discussion.' I wasn't insulting your intelligence, I was saying you were refusing to use it for whatever reasons you have.

11/30/2007 12:55:33 PM

^ Clearly, I was responding to McDanger ^^. And indicating that I refuse to "provide any evidence" is a bold-faced lie and you know it. I always provide evidence--you simply don't like the source, the amount, or disagree with the evidence.

11/30/2007 1:14:21 PM

I agree with hooksaw on this one:

Quote :

" I understand the question and I've answered it--my way. In addition, I understand the issue better than he ever will. Trolls get what I give--nothing more."

Answering questions in your own way is the best way to convince someone you're right. Answering questions so that people understand your view is completely overrated. Compound this with using words in the wrong contexts:

Quote :

""While the ridiculous image may not fit the legal definition of libel--I'm not a lawyer--it certainly fits my definition of it. " "

And then randomly interject a crazy rant about how you don't have to answer other people's questions, or provide evidence (but assert that you do so anyway), while also pointing out how important you are:

Quote :

"I've made my position quite clear. Whether you like it or not, I am free to answer questions as I see fit--and I usually present more evidence than most of you self-important blowhards present. If you don't like it, tough shit. The fact is that no matter how much evidence I present, some of you will still cling to your failed ideology/argument. Let me present this again for your edification: I don't--and won't--work for any of you. I present a reasonable amount of evidence to support my positions--and I don't even have to do that. After all, one is entitled to one's opinion. Clearly, the continual objections to my positions are more about me than my positions. Some of you don't like me--I get that and I couldn't care less. Please stop focusing on individuals and focus on the issues. You obviously don't understand it but some of you actually need me or someone like me. I represent some kind of conservative bogeyman that you can rally against and mock. But deep down inside, I cause you know-it-alls to question, if even just a little, that comfortable bubble that academia has unfortunately convinced you that you're entitled to. Believe me, you need me more than you know."

Seems like an air-tight persuasive strategy to me.

11/30/2007 2:35:14 PM

^

Quote :

"Please stop focusing on individuals and focus on the issues."

11/30/2007 3:06:25 PM

Quote :

"Believe me, you need me more than you know"

Consciously or not, you make things about you, not the issue.

11/30/2007 3:09:04 PM

Quote :

"Consciously or not, you we make things about you, not the issue."

Fixed.

11/30/2007 3:22:24 PM

Quote :

" You obviously don't understand it but some of you actually need me or someone like me. I represent some kind of conservative bogeyman that you can rally against and mock. But deep down inside, I cause you know-it-alls to question, if even just a little, that comfortable bubble that academia has unfortunately convinced you that you're entitled to. Believe me, you need me more than you know."

- kooksaw

11/30/2007 3:30:20 PM

^ Yes, I had the sheer audacity to refer to myself in a paragraph. You have a firm grasp of the obvious.

11/30/2007 3:38:38 PM

^ Please try and keep up.

You're claiming that people are attacking you, not the issues, where it's obvious, by your own words, that you feel your posts can only come from someone like you.

I'm not sure what you mean by "someone like you" but considering we have several other conservatives here who don't come off as completely brain dead, I take that you mean someone who is extremely arrogant about their point of views, but has no ability to assimilate new information or form logical connections.

11/30/2007 3:42:00 PM

Quote :

"Are you Gay?? What would you prefer, Antonio giving it to you in the butt. Or maybe phone sex while you use your blow up doll"

1 day in the box for HUR

11/30/2007 8:04:48 PM

^^^ oh wow, hooksaw used a in his post. IMAGINE THAT

11/30/2007 11:14:16 PM

Quit personally attacking him! You'll get hooksaw derangement syndrome!


It's like aids.

11/30/2007 11:24:01 PM

there is really only one thing to say to that ^^

[Edited on November 30, 2007 at 11:30 PM. Reason : aw man.]

11/30/2007 11:29:36 PM

Quote :

"Did you really need to bomb this thread with a completely off-topic essay? Was a quote of your bolded text and a link not sufficient?"

a little unnecessary, in my opinion. I mean, yeah, I would've been ok if he'd just posted the link, because I wasn't going to read it either way, but as long as he doesn't go completely nuts with it, who cares if he posts a long article here and there? Maybe not what I and some others would choose, but who really gives a shit as long as it isn't totally excessive?

Quote :

"^ 1. I was addressing a point in the post above my post. 2. Did you really need to offer even more pissy commentary? "

1. Fair enough.

2. 1 day in the box, hooksaw. (and if this instance wasn't enough, you ended up sealing the deal for sure later in the thread).

Quote :

"but no one really considers your shit no ones cares about what you say because of the manner in which you present it you're nothing a joke"

for this and most (all?) of your posts after it that I won't bother to quote:

2 days in the box for our resident slow learner, nastoute.

[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 1:05 AM. Reason : asdf]

12/4/2007 1:04:17 AM

whatever

12/4/2007 1:05:38 AM

^^

Quote :

" I would've been ok if he'd just posted the link, because I wasn't going to read it either way"

lol



[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 1:33 AM. Reason : ]

12/4/2007 1:32:23 AM

This seems wholly appropriate to me.

12/4/2007 2:45:16 AM

sweet, taking the trash out of the soap box.

12/4/2007 3:18:51 AM

Haha, it's made sweeter by the fact that he was so confident that he was doing nothing wrong, and that we were the ones that wanted the change, so don't cry when we got suspended.

While he continued to troll troll away.

12/4/2007 9:47:06 AM

If theDuke is taking this seriously, then he'll put twista in the box for 2 days for this

/message_topic.aspx?topic=471788&page=16#10995096

Quote :

"Quote : "Mr. Rove said the president just received the best possible gift from the House's most vocal war critic, Rep. John P. Murtha, who just returned from a trip to Iraq and stated flatly: "The surge is working." "It was a remarkable moment last week when Jack Murtha, who said the war is lost, the surge won't work, comes back and says the surge is working. You know that there's real progress on the ground when the most ardent, acerbic critic of the president's policy says in essence, 'I was wrong,'" 6 months of trolling under 3 screen names and for what chance? to have your pessimistic ass proven wrong"

It's just uncalled for. How can my question "Is the surge working" be proven right or wrong? It's an unbiased question. Additionally, he is wasting everyones time mentioning my aliases for the ump-teenth. Christ, get over it. Lastly, the topic had been dead for more than 15 days. If this isn't targeted troll bait and in need of a suspension, I don't know what qualifies.

12/4/2007 11:39:59 AM

(here is the thread in question btw \message_topic.aspx?topic=471788

you use multiple names throughout a thread to spread your defeatist pessimism, but i should be suspended for revisiting the thread and calling you out for being wrong for 6 months? riiiiiiiiight

Quote :

"How can my question "Is the surge working" be proven right or wrong?"

Jack Murtha just said it was working

Quote :

"Lastly, the topic had been dead for more than 15 days. If this isn't targeted troll bait and in need of a suspension, I don't know what qualifies."

Who cares how long it has been dead? The reason it has been dead is you only like to post pessimistic articles to support your view that the surge isnt working, couldnt ever work, and never will work. The surge is clearly working, as the biggest skeptic now realizes it is working, and instead of eating 6 months worth of crow you call for my suspension? you spend 6 months preaching doom and gloom and then you get upset and start calling for suspensions when your pessimism is once again proven wrong? you're ridiculous

12/4/2007 11:47:13 AM

Quote :

"you use multiple names throughout a thread to spread your defeatist pessimism"

Everyone knew my aliases when they were being used. I wasn't using them at the same time as if they were different people. This is just more irrelevant trolling on your part.

Quote :

"but i should be suspended for revisiting the thread and calling you out for being wrong for 6 months? riiiiiiiiight"

Why would I want you suspended for calling me out as wrong? I don't have a problem admitting I was wrong. You should be suspended for the manner in which you were attempting to troll me. You could have just added that information to the thread, and left your troll comments at home.

Quote :

"Jack Murtha just said it was working"

Yes, Jack Murtha said the surge was working, but you missed the point. My question had no bias as it was originally asked. Had I said "The surge isn't working", then indeed that can be proven right or wrong. But as it was stated "Is it working?" can have yes/no/maybe answers but the question itself is logically neutral, and thus can't be proven one way or the other.

Quote :

"Who cares how long it has been dead?"

On it's own merit, no one cares either way. But when you go hunting for it to bttt it so you can troll me, well, then it kinda matters.

Quote :

"The reason it has been dead is you only like to post pessimistic articles to support your view that the surge isnt working, couldnt ever work, and never will work."

That's why it has been dead, because I'm not posting in it? Aren't others free to post in it as well? The thread diverged a LONG LONG time ago (back to Sept or Oct I think) when your drivel got it offtrack, so I hardly feel inclined to try and bring it back to life. Furthermore, I've stated in other threads besides that one that it looks like the surge is working. Try again.

Quote :

"The surge is clearly working, as the biggest skeptic now realizes it is working, and instead of eating 6 months worth of crow you call for my suspension?"

It's hard to eat crow that hasn't been served. I was a skeptic about the surge, rightfully so when all the way into July the trend hadn't improved.

Quote :

"you spend 6 months preaching doom and gloom and then you get upset and start calling for suspensions when your pessimism is once again proven wrong? you're ridiculous"

Yea, I'm that kinda guy, I get proven wrong in a debate and I suddenly want someone suspended


I have to wonder, 5 years from now, will you still be the same immature idiotic prick trolling this section that you have always been?

12/4/2007 5:35:20 PM

John Murtha owns your bitch ass

12/4/2007 5:37:37 PM

^The box?

[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 6:38 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2007 6:37:38 PM

now i cant say somebody owns somebody's bitch ass in the designated thread for talking smack? i dunno if you read through joe_schmoe's initial post outlining this thread

btw fuck you idiot

[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 6:42 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2007 6:42:26 PM