Forums | MacLife

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

Ronald Reagan does have a point. You are a blatant suck-up. If you really feel such an urge to suck up to oatmeal, you must be planning a big flame fest . Let us know when it all goes down, OK? PM me.

Maybe you'll get your name mentioned in the Rules right beside mine someday. ROFLMAO

OK, the flame fest will happen at midnight.  Then after the flame fest, the mods will be so busy banning everyone from MiniThink that the flame war can then go to private messages.  Just don't start the war in PM's until 12 noon.  If you do it earlier, the mods will detect you and *might* even ban you.  Now if everyone does it, then everyone in the MAF will be banned at the same time, thus creating such a chaos that it would be easier to close the entire server rather than leave it to a bunch of n00bs.

Either that, or everyone can flood every topic with a sea of Max smileys.

BTW, if you're such a bad example, then why are you allowed to post here?    I never quite got that bit of irony. 

MysticCow wrote:

BTW, if you're such a bad example, then why are you allowed to post here?    I never quite got that bit of irony. 

Sometimes I'm not.

I like how XYZ/RR complains about people singling him out and attacking him, but then turns around and calls them names every single time he feels slighted by them.

And then he has to say that MT is a "playground"

Two words, buddy:  grow up.

NAG wrote:

Phydeaux wrote:

And Godwin's Law. I win.

But what about your law?

I think that's technically "Halbie's Law."  It deals with Phy, but it isn't named after him.

XYZ wrote:

You can say "well, it was a zombie" all you like, but the fact is that you used to think that it's ok to continue relevant discussions.

I also used to think that there was a chance in hell that you could be reasoned with.  Things change.   

You haven't acknowledged that you broke the rules as stated, all you've done is point fingers at the others.  I've explained where I'm coming from, but since you're determined to not take the hint, I'll spell it out.  You have two options here:

1)  Start a new thread on the subject (with more than quote & link as a suggestion for debate).

2)  Don't start a new thread on the subject.

I'm done arguing about it.

XYZ wrote:

Oatmeal. When someone grossly violates 5 rules, I find it hard to accept the least important rule, one that you changed, is the one that prompted your action. You used to agree that topics that are still relevant can be continued. Nothing about Debbie's Jeb Bush topic was out of date. The discussion was working just fine until Duke realized he could be a jerk at my expense. The topic was destroyed and the moderators were fine with that. That makes this forum very poor indeed.

You can say "well, it was a zombie" all you like, but the fact is that you used to think that it's ok to continue relevant discussions. Even Benighted agreed after a long debate on the subject that locking topics simply because of the date of creation or last post is illogical. You can say "I'm a mod so what I say goes", or "might makes right", but might makes right is not logical. Might makes might, not right. Truth is not determined by convenience.

This place should be a place for civilized adult discourse, not a kiddie playpen. The behavior in Debbie's topic by Duke and even somewhat by Shnicky is abominable, and you're not helping this forum by promoting it.

I'd love to see the debate about "Zombie Topics" just for my own review.

Now in all seriousness, I looked at that topic as impartially as I could, so if I step on anyone's toes when I give my own opinion, tough luck.  *puts on pseud-moderator's hat*  Here's my two shiny pennies on the subject:

XYZ--The last post on that particular thread was on 1/8/05 before you posted in it.  Only the Gods know what page that particular topic was on when you found it, and probably everyone forgot what they even said.  It means either you performed a server search for the topic or you went through the many many pages of MiniThink to find this topic.  In this case, I'd find it more preferable to see a new topic over one that goes back to January of this year.  My own personal rule is that if I can't find it on the first page, start it up and see what happens.  In addition to this, your only response to the thread was to post a link and offer nothing in terms of commentary or analysis.  This is standard fare for you, and it is completely unacceptable behavior (it could be considered spam under the new rules).  If you want to post, you will need to post with some kind of discernable angle from you that can be discussed by this board.  Otherwise, don't say a thing.

Schnick--I've been guilty of this kind of thing too, so you have every right to call me a hypocrite.  You added nothing to the conversation except to point out the thread is a Zombie thread.  You then disappear, only to return with a smart ass remark (which is the part of this that I have done also) about the media and add nothing to the conversation at hand (regardless of Zombie status).  If it is a Zombie thread, report it.

Duke--How is posting two pages of Zombie pictures doing anything other than wasting your time and ours?  One or two pictures would be more than sufficient, but what you did was a waste of space and could be considered "being a jerk."

Freakout Jackson--The only thing you did was add fuel to the fire, but thankfully, the topic was closed after that.  Dedicating an entire post (no matter how short) to the prospect of adding more drama to a situation could be considered "being a jerk" and to me, it is trolling.

Oatmeal--First off, thank the Gods I don't have your job.  Because of that, I don't know when the topic got reported, though.  Therefore, I cannot make a complaint about the topic being closed after two pages of zombie pictures.  Now I think you made a critical mistake with admitting you laughed about all the zombie pics (and then seemingly approving of it through the use of emoticons).  In essence, you've taken a side against XYZ in this affair, which is bad moderating (similar to the Cybercott issue).  To me, even the appearance of impartiality is better than open partisanship.

*removes pseudo moderator hat*

*puts on MysticCow hat again*

Now with that bitch out of the way, let's have some fun.

MysticCow wrote:

Duke--How is posting two pages of Zombie pictures doing anything other than wasting your time and ours?

It only took me 41 minutes, which no doubt included plenty of beer and bathroom breaks. I actually don't remember doing it all that well, although I do remember cracking up at "Attack of the Zombie Girls."

MysticCow wrote:

One or two pictures would be more than sufficient,

I was having a hard time picking out one or two favorites. What can I say?

MysticCow wrote:

but what you did was a waste of space

As far as the space goes, the images themselves were already stored on various other servers.

MysticCow wrote:

and could be considered "being a jerk."

:pouts: Yes'm. Sorry. Can I still come over tonight?

Duke, for you I'd do anything, except stuff that involves pee and poo

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

If I post now, I can see the rest of this thread [from Tallgeese's "And who is "Goosey Loosey?"" onwards]. Otherwise, no...
Um.

Edit: Nah, browser problem.

No, no, something weird happened. Or else I had the some browser problem for a few minutes.

Yup, the forum is revolting against this thread. Who can blame it?

OMGBBQLOL:
You didn't double post!

Ummm... IBtehL?

OK .

yore all nazis.

there.

new thread, plz?

iBubba wrote:

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

Ronald Reagan wrote:

Since when is having good discussions destroyed by capricious posters "fun"?
Some more sense.

I certainly think that oatmeal takes sides a little too openly (e.g. Cybercott).

Cybercott 2005® would have gone on with, or without, the input from ANY mod - and for the record, it has been said time and time again that none of the mods are expected to sit perfectly neutral on ALL topics. They participate in discussions and they have opinions. Don't like it? Go find a 'bot monitored BB.

I am aware that mods are humans. As you've just pointed out, this has been to done to death.

'Cott is my baby, not endorsed by anyone "official" on MAF. The simply told me if I was going to do it then to keep it in the sig. AS A MATTER OF FACT I was warned a few times FOR promoting the 'cott in a post.

This is what I have a problem with. Singling out members in threads is bad but in signatures is fine? Please. It just felt unpleasant to me have a mod saying : 'Um.. yeah. I don't much like him either but if you were to, you know, say that in your sig rather then in a post, I won't complain'.

Generally oatmeal has been a good/great mod. But... um.