Mass Culling Phase II.

[Jack of Arcades]

If you'd just stop withholding sex from him, he wouldn't be so insufferable on here.

[Eurotrash]

ban JoA.

[Dominic]

Personally, I don't think banning should be done as a popularity contest. What makes this forum, and any forum, interesting, is the wildly divurgent personalities and opinions.

A good mod doesn't need our input on this, [censored]. And although we've had our differences in the past, I've always been amused at your iron-fisted way of doing business here. This smacks of softness and I'm disappointed in you. You should know better!

1) Make the rules.
2) Make the rules very clear.
3) If someone breaks the rules, give them a warning. (*)
4) If that person breaks the rules again, give them one, last warning. (**)
5) If they break a rule yet again - out they go.

What's so hard about that? And why should the masses be participating in it?

[DrewDevil]

This thread reminds me of a bunch of first graders on the playground.

[bisonbison]

I "showed all" for this thread and did a text find for diebitter, cause I wanted to PM him, but he's mentioned so many times I quit before I found a post by him.

[Anacardo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Utah is pretty funny with his relationship theory and creates good threads even if you dont agree and laugh at him.

[/ QUOTE ]Here's a solid effort to spin the fact that my husband speaks and debates like a schizophrenic eight year old playground bully into something positive, by some long stretch of the imagination.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mrs. Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Utah is pretty funny with his relationship theory and creates good threads even if you dont agree and laugh at him.

[/ QUOTE ]Here's a solid effort to spin the fact that my husband speaks and debates like a schizophrenic eight year old playground bully into something positive, by some long stretch of the imagination.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Was that really necessary? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Who is acting like an 8 year old here?

[RunDownHouse]

Dom,

Two warnings? Bizarre. If you can't take the time to read the rules, I don't see why anyone should take the time to hold your hand and walk you through them once, much less twice. If the rules are clear, I'm all for banning when they're broken the first time around, not the third.

Mrs. Utah,

I'd consider those who stay out of the politics forum the intelligent ones. The people actually driving discussion in there are like the leaders of some loony, retarded donnybrook between members of the McLaughlin Group.

[Mrs. Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I don't think banning should be done as a popularity contest. What makes this forum, and any forum, interesting, is the wildly divurgent personalities and opinions.

A good mod doesn't need our input on this, [censored]. And although we've had our differences in the past, I've always been amused at your iron-fisted way of doing business here. This smacks of softness and I'm disappointed in you. You should know better!

1) Make the rules.
2) Make the rules very clear.
3) If someone breaks the rules, give them a warning. (*)
4) If that person breaks the rules again, give them one, last warning. (**)
5) If they break a rule yet again - out they go.

What's so hard about that? And why should the masses be participating in it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bravo Dom!

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously Dom won't get banned so no need to fret there.
NT

[/ QUOTE ]

you never know

[/ QUOTE ]


and did you realize I posted the review in OOT FIRST, [censored]? Of course not. Why would it be locked, then? If anything, DB should've locked it in the QZ.

I stand by my assertion. I like you, but sometimes you really live up to your name.