This Site is Starting to Suck!

[Ghost Writer]

Lately, I have noticed a marked decline in the quality of people frequenting this site. What happened to the old guard that I came to appreciate? Where did everybody go? Where are the intriguing questions? I suggest you quit banning newcomers simply because you fear a challenge. Let the debate continue, and the chips fall where they may. Quit acting like the yellow bellies that I so aptly labeled you months ago.

Question: What do they say about me in the scum pit known as the commie club?

[Ian]

Not much

[Sabocat]

Ghost.....love the Felix the Cat avatar. Haven't seen ol' Felix for 20 years I bet.

[suffianr]

Prove that there is a correlation between less trolls and better posts.


What do they say about me in the scum pit known as the commie club?

We scum pit folks say whatever we want to say in them scum pits. What business is it of yours, anyway? :ph34r:

[Moskitto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 10:45 AM
Ghost.....love the Felix the Cat avatar. Haven't seen ol' Felix for 20 years I bet.
Felix the cat sucks and the whole concept used to piss me off.

[Sabocat]

BLASPHEMY!......HERETIC!

Felix and his "magic bag" rocked!

[Moskitto]

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Field/7342/Va1-2.jpg

Vasily Alexeyev says, don't praise the cat

[Sabocat]

LOL. Damn...I couldn't see the picture. Vasili was the man.

[Elect Marx]

Ghost Wanker,
You seen to have lost your title :( but you are really improving the quality of this site by starting this thread. Communism is good.

[Moskitto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 08:46 PM
LOL. Damn...I couldn't see the picture. Vasili was the man.
Vasili was a psycho, there's a photo of him lifting weights in a river where he's in the get set position underwater, there's annother one with him "warming up" doing 1 arm tricep press with a 72kg weight!!! And he weighed over 200kg at his peak

Although, Along with Miyake (probably strongest man for his bodyweight of all time) and Suleymanoglu, he's the greatest weightlifter of all time.

[sc4r]

I think what GW means is that he is seeing less interest in replying to his nonsense. Fewer people are willing to waste their time constructing details rebuttals of arguments, from he and his fellow interlopers, that a child can see are constructed from a viewpoint which is always rabid and usually constructed upon foundations which have all the intellectual solidity of shifting sand. And dirty sand at that.

Hate to break it to you again SN but you aint wanted and people dont want to talk to you. Thats life. You obviously love us or you wouldn't stay; but we dont love you. Hard aint it that unrequited thing.

Never mind.

[IHP]

I had left, but I dropped back to check my messages. Thank you Norm, indeed the quality has declined.

I see Stupid Americans vs. Stupid Canadians threads. to name but one rediculous thing.

sc4r: I think you have moved away from the original point. If you don't want to 'waste time' constructing rebuttals, why on earth would you frequent a message board of this essence? Taken from a right-wing point of view, it is YOU and indeed the majority of us that have somewhat of a rabid viewpoint.

Furthermore, don't speak for everyone if you don't know their opinion. While I wouldn't say that I 'love' Norm (because that would be totally bizarre), but I hold a degree of respect for him. Also, I (back in the days that Norm refers to) would have taken him over some total simpleton. No question about it. What's the point of arguing with a twit? You are not justifying your beliefs etc.

Just some food for thought is all.

--IHP

[sc4r]

I think pinochet you kinda totally miss the point yourself buddy.

I've got no problem defending my views, at as much length and in as much depth as probably anyone would ever care to ask. And I do so.

But construct a 'rebuttal' to such crapola as 'should gays be in separate schools ?' etc (the latest 'quality' contribution from 'Norm')? No! that is a waste of time. It would be liking bothering to argue with a highly literate advocate of flat earth (the words sound cool but the entire pretext is insanely deluded).

MY opinion and experience of 'norm' is that he is a long winded and pretentious Jackass; If he is the best example of a 'capitalist' debater you have ever come across then all I can say is you should get out more.

I frequent THIS board to hear the varied opinions of socialists, communists and anarchists. I rarely visit OI. On other boards I get proper discussion from Capitalists and Conservatives sometimes, but here the OI denizens are overwhelmingly complete tits.

Its up to you who you have respect for.

[IHP]

First off, I'm not your buddy.

Second, I never said you missed the point. I said that you had moved away from it. It's totally different. However, you didn't display how I had "missed the point" anyway.

If you have no problems defending your views then do so. No one is forcing you to come in here and read what you find to be unfulfilling.

As for the thread mentioned, yes I do find that to be a little rediculous, though I could dig up many, many others started by him that totally justify his presence here. Of course he just received abuse (commonly Stormin' Moron) without actually refuting his arguments. Could it not be argued that taking a stroll down ad hominem road is just as childish as you take Norm to be? Indeed so.

"If he is the best example of a 'capitalist' debater you have ever come across then all I can say is you should get out more."

Don't presume upon my existence. My studies alone at university grant me more 'capitalist debaters' than anywhere else combined. I go out all the time. How is my social life at all relevent to political discussion board?

--IHP

[Hampton]

Who was banned recently that added fruitful debates? That Joan of Arch fellow? He didn't have anything intelligent to say.

[Palmares]

Supposedly quite a few people have been banned, but I haven't personally noticed coz I am semi-disillusioned with this board.

People complain about stupid posts, which I have occassionally performed, but when I go out of my way to put forward a post of some breadth, it is almost entirely ignored.

BTW, Stormin Norman isn't that bad, he has stupid posts/threads sometimes, so what? Is everyone here supposed to be bland intellectuals with no sense of humour?

[Michael De Panama]

At this point, I really don't agree with any bans.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I think we all just need to slam a dime of scag and then go to sleep, then all this banning business will take second runner up to meeting "the man" in a dark alley.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Originally posted by Ghost [email protected] 6 2003, 03:26 PM
Lately, I have noticed a marked decline in the quality of people frequenting this site.
That you feel this way is the single best indicator I have ever seen of the fact that we are headed in the right direction.

--- G.

[antieverything]

I agree, OI sucks these days. It used to be my main stop on my Che-Lives visits but now there's nothing worth adding to. Ah, I remember the good ole days when there were some actual cappies to debate...been so long the names escape me.

[redstar2000]

If it was up to me, this forum would be abolished.

There is nothing to "discuss" or "debate" with defenders of class society, regardless of their alledged "intelligence".

There's nothing personal about it; they may be nice people who love dogs and small children.

But they are proponents of wage-slavery, which, in my view, puts them on the same level as 19th century defenders of chattel slavery.

Turds, by definition!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Dhul Fiqar+Aug 7 2003, 01:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dhul Fiqar @ Aug 7 2003, 01:53 PM)
Ghost [email protected] 6 2003, 03:26 PM
Lately, I have noticed a marked decline in the quality of people frequenting this site.
That you feel this way is the single best indicator I have ever seen of the fact that we are headed in the right direction.

--- G. [/b]


Good to have you back in action comrade Fiqar, you sneaky bastard. I thought at least I would have gotten a laugh out of you with my last post. Perhaps Deutschland has you a bit testy.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I don&#39;t always make a public announcement when I giggle at a remark, I giggle more than a schoolgirl on a field trip to the dildo factory ;)

--- G.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 10:14 PM
I agree, OI sucks these days. It used to be my main stop on my Che-Lives visits but now there&#39;s nothing worth adding to. Ah, I remember the good ole days when there were some actual cappies to debate...been so long the names escape me.
I plan on spending most of my time on this forum shooting down dumb reactionary "left-wing" rebuttals to a well-worded, witty, intelligent but immoral capitalist ideas. Hell, someone&#39;s gotta do it...

Alan :ph34r:

[sc4r]

Originally posted by i hate [email protected] 7 2003, 04:49 AM
First off, I&#39;m not your buddy.

Second, I never said you missed the point. I said that you had moved away from it. It&#39;s totally different. However, you didn&#39;t display how I had "missed the point" anyway.

If you have no problems defending your views then do so. No one is forcing you to come in here and read what you find to be unfulfilling.

As for the thread mentioned, yes I do find that to be a little rediculous, though I could dig up many, many others started by him that totally justify his presence here. Of course he just received abuse (commonly Stormin&#39; Moron) without actually refuting his arguments. Could it not be argued that taking a stroll down ad hominem road is just as childish as you take Norm to be? Indeed so.

"If he is the best example of a &#39;capitalist&#39; debater you have ever come across then all I can say is you should get out more."

Don&#39;t presume upon my existence. My studies alone at university grant me more &#39;capitalist debaters&#39; than anywhere else combined. I go out all the time. How is my social life at all relevent to political discussion board?

--IHP
OK sonny, you are at university. YOu are damned right that dont make me your buddy.

No-one forces me to step into OI, and in fact I dont do it very often. So what ?

Like I said if you want to admire norm thats up to you. I dont. At all. So I said so. You apparrently think there is something to discuss in that. There is not.

Talk to me when you have outgrown short trousers.

[Xvall]

I honestly don&#39;t have any clue what the hell you&#39;re talking about. If the site really sucks you could always leave, or start Reagan-Lives.com or something.

[Michael De Panama]

I&#39;ve always felt that the OI board is the best place on Che Lives. If it were up to me, I&#39;d get rid of all the fucking structure on this message board and just let people defend whatever their beliefs are wherever they want to, regardless of whether or not the vast majority of this place respects them.

[sc4r]

There is a reason why the structure is as it is.

Lots of us socialists have differing ideas as to the best aproach to socialism. We all agree (or most of us anyway) that just about any genuine form is better than Catitalism or Liberal democracy (which has a tendency to become more and more Capitalistic). But we do have diffeent notions about what is the best of the best. So we&#39;d like to discuss this without the idiotic intervantion of people who wish to say &#39;RAH RAH YUEESSAY - U ALL SUXORS&#39; or whatever.

There are plenty of sites where people who wish to spout capitalist slogans can (and do).

Now I personally would say that only a pretty small proportion of &#39;capitalists&#39; actualy know very much even about the system they are extolling (I&#39;ve lost count of the number of times I&#39;ve been told that Capitalism is inherrently democratic - it is not). They know even less about Socialism (a typical comment is &#39;they would all becvome Layzeee and the dictator would be Rich&#39;). This makes sensible discusion with all but a few impossible (on this site the only sensible OI chap I&#39;ve ever seen was called Von Mises).

So we dont want to discuss stuff with people who genreally have nothing to say (Norm for xample is to my mind merely a homophobic racist who happens to have a dictionary and access to an encyclopedia).

Bottom line this is a socialist site. Hence its structure. You want to debate stuff in open forums go to them. This is not one.

best wishes.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 08:08 PM
Lots of us socialists have differing ideas as to the best aproach to socialism. We all agree (or most of us anyway) that just about any genuine form is better than Catitalism or Liberal democracy (which has a tendency to become more and more Capitalistic). But we do have diffeent notions about what is the best of the best. So we&#39;d like to discuss this without the idiotic intervantion of people who wish to say &#39;RAH RAH YUEESSAY - U ALL SUXORS&#39; or whatever.
So don&#39;t come here then. It&#39;d be much better for everyone if the people who didn&#39;t wanna visit this place didn&#39;t, since all their posts do is encourage the stereotype of leftists being illiterate wannabe rebels.

Alan :ph34r:

[Michael De Panama]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 02:08 PM
There is a reason why the structure is as it is.

Lots of us socialists have differing ideas as to the best aproach to socialism. We all agree (or most of us anyway) that just about any genuine form is better than Catitalism or Liberal democracy (which has a tendency to become more and more Capitalistic). But we do have diffeent notions about what is the best of the best. So we&#39;d like to discuss this without the idiotic intervantion of people who wish to say &#39;RAH RAH YUEESSAY - U ALL SUXORS&#39; or whatever.

There are plenty of sites where people who wish to spout capitalist slogans can (and do).

Now I personally would say that only a pretty small proportion of &#39;capitalists&#39; actualy know very much even about the system they are extolling (I&#39;ve lost count of the number of times I&#39;ve been told that Capitalism is inherrently democratic - it is not). They know even less about Socialism (a typical comment is &#39;they would all becvome Layzeee and the dictator would be Rich&#39;). This makes sensible discusion with all but a few impossible (on this site the only sensible OI chap I&#39;ve ever seen was called Von Mises).

So we dont want to discuss stuff with people who genreally have nothing to say (Norm for xample is to my mind merely a homophobic racist who happens to have a dictionary and access to an encyclopedia).

Bottom line this is a socialist site. Hence its structure. You want to debate stuff in open forums go to them. This is not one.

best wishes.
As far as I&#39;m concerned, the few capitalists on this message board are actually smarter than the majority of communists. It&#39;s sad but true. And I have no respect for cowards who would rather dispose of the opposition than defend their own beliefs. The world was never meant to serve you, and you should quit acting like what you "want" is more important than the natural course of events. I don&#39;t give a fuck if this is a socialist message board. It&#39;s gotten dull as fuck lately, and, as a socialist, I&#39;d just like to see people realize that this is just a fucking message board. Let the chips fall where they may.

[redstar2000]

As far as I&#39;m concerned, the few capitalists on this message board are actually smarter than the majority of communists. It&#39;s sad but true.

A bizarre remark; but even if true, so what? Given their clearly demonstrated ignorance of the realities of class society, how could they possibly have anything of interest to say? 19th century slave-owners were quite convinced that slavery was not only "good for the slaves" but that the majority of "sensible" slaves actually "preferred" their condition.

Would you like to "argue" with such a person? What could you say?

And I have no respect for cowards who would rather dispose of the opposition than defend their own beliefs.

Do astronomers "defend their beliefs" in argument with astrologers?

And, by the way, if you really want to "defend your beliefs" in arguments with reactionaries, there are rightwing boards that are looking for lefties to savage. I declined an invitation just the other day, but you&#39;re welcome to take "my" place: www.rightminds.com is, if memory serves me, the url.

...you should quit acting like what you "want" is more important than the natural course of events.

It&#39;s impossible to know what this means, if anything. Literally, what we want is more important than "the natural course of events"...whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

I don&#39;t give a fuck if this is a socialist message board. It&#39;s gotten dull as fuck lately, and, as a socialist, I&#39;d just like to see people realize that this is just a fucking message board.

Whoever said it was anything else? But, I&#39;ll grant that there are doubtless more "entertaining" sites on the internet than Che-Lives.

And perhaps even more interesting ones. But if one wants to talk about communist ideas with other intelligent communists...this is the best place I&#39;ve found so far.

And it would be even better without the reactionaries.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[antieverything]

One unmistakable mark of evil is the denial that one could possibly be wrong.

...and you can quote me on that.

[IHP]

"OK sonny, you are at university. YOu are damned right that dont make me your buddy."

Where did I draw parallel between my studies and friendship with you?

"No-one forces me to step into OI, and in fact I dont do it very often. So what ?"

So don&#39;t. Put up or shut up.

"Like I said if you want to admire norm thats up to you. I dont. At all. So I said so. You apparrently think there is something to discuss in that. There is not."

I merely observed that you had taken the discussion to another area, which was Norm leaving. That wasn&#39;t the original topic. You, in fact, took it further and replied once more.

"Talk to me when you have outgrown short trousers."

What&#39;s with the attitude? Are you ageist?

This has gone on for too many posts already. This is why I left in the first place.

--IHP

[sc4r]

DO you not get it child. THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION.

NORM whinged about policy on a board he is not a full member of and in fact has been chucked out of several times. HE is a prat.

You decided to defend him. I decided to say that you&#39;r a bit of a prat yourself for doing so.

Thats it.

[IHP]

The essence of a thread is for discussion/debate etc.

An observation was brought forth, I simply observed that the angle had changed and it has ended up with you calling me names. It can also be pointed out that Norm didn&#39;t complain in this thread about being banned, only that the quality has declined, and put forth a possible explanation. Simple.

I hardly think you deserve to be condescending. Resorting to ad hominem is unnecessary. I don&#39;t see why you&#39;re putting so much heart into this.

My choice to defend someone is not an issue of personality etc. It&#39;s what I think is beneficial to the board. Opinion. This does not equate to being a "prat." I would have expected more maturity from you, that is, from what I had read in the past...

If you do not wish to frequent this forum, then don&#39;t. "That&#39;s it."

--IHP

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by i hate [email protected] 9 2003, 11:35 AM
The essence of a thread is for discussion/debate etc.

An observation was brought forth, I simply observed that the angle had changed and it has ended up with you calling me names. It can also be pointed out that Norm didn&#39;t complain in this thread about being banned, only that the quality has declined, and put forth a possible explanation. Simple.

I hardly think you deserve to be condescending. Resorting to ad hominem is unnecessary. I don&#39;t see why you&#39;re putting so much heart into this.

My choice to defend someone is not an issue of personality etc. It&#39;s what I think is beneficial to the board. Opinion. This does not equate to being a "prat." I would have expected more maturity from you, that is, from what I had read in the past...

If you do not wish to frequent this forum, then don&#39;t. "That&#39;s it."

--IHP
Hey your back... :) I thought you had left us in discust. Good to see you back IHP, personnally I disagree I think that Norm&#39;s an prick, who should be given a dry ***** slap to his ignorant capitalist face.

But its good to see you back.

PS caught syphilis yet? :lol:

[IHP]

Hows things AK? Hit any pubs you little pisshead? I&#39;m back in Australia now, and it&#39;s pretty boring I might add. The dogs you sent for me were too ugly, try again my lad.

I did leave in disgust and I will do it once more. Once the member who is calling me names realizes that I wasn&#39;t having a go at him. Though on this board I find it unlikely. Too many peacocks.

I might add, however, that although you and I disagree on Norm, you don&#39;t find it necessary to abuse me. Well done AK.

--IHP

[sc4r]

Originally posted by i hate [email protected] 9 2003, 11:35 AM
The essence of a thread is for discussion/debate etc.

An observation was brought forth, I simply observed that the angle had changed and it has ended up with you calling me names. It can also be pointed out that Norm didn&#39;t complain in this thread about being banned, only that the quality has declined, and put forth a possible explanation. Simple.

I hardly think you deserve to be condescending. Resorting to ad hominem is unnecessary. I don&#39;t see why you&#39;re putting so much heart into this.

My choice to defend someone is not an issue of personality etc. It&#39;s what I think is beneficial to the board. Opinion. This does not equate to being a "prat." I would have expected more maturity from you, that is, from what I had read in the past...

If you do not wish to frequent this forum, then don&#39;t. "That&#39;s it."

--IHP
Can you read (if you cant it would explain your allegiange to Norm) ? Where have I indicated in any way that I dont wish to frequent this forum? It &#39;s not me that is whinging about the forum it is Norm, and presumably you.

Take a little look at my first post. What it does basically is explain why the forum is not an open debate.

Norm will complain endlessly about anything connected to the board, and he has done. HE is deliberatetly destructive in his attitude to this board. If you want to support him as I&#39;ve said before that up to you, But it makes you in my eyes a bit of a prat for not being able to see him for what he is.

[IHP]

I state that you should not frequent this forum because YOU said that you don&#39;t. You were telling Norm to leave because he wasn&#39;t wanted here, I suggested that you should not speak for others. That is all.

"Allegiance"? Ironic. You told ME to grow up. How far you still have to come. No, I have not sworn "allegiance" to Norm. As you so often tell me, I will throw it back at you and ask: Can you read?

Look here: "My choice to defend someone is not an issue of personality etc. It&#39;s what I think is beneficial to the board. Opinion. "

No, sc4r, I am not allied.

Again with the "prat." You really need to remove that chip on your shoulder.

This, as I have said before, has gone on too long. We disagree, that&#39;s all. Cut the names out of it and we might reach some kind medium.

--IHP

[Soul Rebel]

nice to see you back IHP :)

[IHP]

Thanks Senora, I&#39;d love to say it&#39;s good to be back.

Hope all your pursuits have been successful. See you around&#33;

--IHP

[sc4r]

Originally posted by i hate [email protected] 10 2003, 02:02 PM
I state that you should not frequent this forum because YOU said that you don&#39;t. You were telling Norm to leave because he wasn&#39;t wanted here, I suggested that you should not speak for others. That is all.

"Allegiance"? Ironic. You told ME to grow up. How far you still have to come. No, I have not sworn "allegiance" to Norm. As you so often tell me, I will throw it back at you and ask: Can you read?

Look here: "My choice to defend someone is not an issue of personality etc. It&#39;s what I think is beneficial to the board. Opinion. "

No, sc4r, I am not allied.

Again with the "prat." You really need to remove that chip on your shoulder.

This, as I have said before, has gone on too long. We disagree, that&#39;s all. Cut the names out of it and we might reach some kind medium.

--IHP
I suggest you look back to the start of our exchages. Yopu decided to take issue with me for telling Norm where to get off (and BTW also opened up the name calling).

Fact is that my view of norm is very defintely the prevalent one amongst bona fide members of this board (Ie socialists). I dont give a monkeys that the various cappie pricks who visit OI like him; they are also uninvited, barely tolerated, and badly behaved &#39;guests&#39;.

Norm has been banned numerous times. That alone tells you how much he is wanted.

He has been banned because he insists on being racist, sexist, and and an asshole. If you want to defend someone like that fine, its up to you. But you will get no sympathy from me if you do so.

I am a bona fide member of this board. I do not look in on OI very often. So what? the OI part of the board is a generous courtesy extended to non socialists but that is all. It is however subject to the rules established for the board as a whole and by the members and admins od the forum as a whole. IT is not a private separate little kingdom.

I dont know your persuasion. But frankly if you are a socialist and cannot see Norm for what he is - a worrdy and nasty turd with a good line in totally spurious &#39;intelligence&#39; - then you are indeed hugely mistaken. Which is what to me a prat means.

Norms views on who whould and should not be beanned or why are of deep disinterest and relevance. Because he is neither a member not even a particularly welcome &#39;gueest&#39;. He is a troublemaker looking to make the board admin look bad. Why? because he dislikes everything they syand for; he&#39;d argue if they sent out roses to every cappie on their birthday. Thats what this is about.

[IHP]

For crying out soft.

Where did I start calling you names? I don&#39;t recall nor can I see where this has happened.

Bona Fide? Why all the seperation into bona fide, and whatever else your club incorporates, and people who differ in opnion. In what sense are you part of this bona fide club? I have been here longer, I have more posts...that is irrelevent yes? Yes. So is having some clique that excludes people.

You have your little treehouse party with bona fide members.

The reason I posted in this thread was because I agreed with him, in that the board quality has declined in a serious manner. That is all.

I will say this one last time. You and I have different opinions on Norm. OK? That is all. No need for names and groups of members who are true and those who are not.

Have we made progress? I don&#39;t have anything against you, I never have, but I don&#39;t understand why you have to constantly retort with no new information than we already know. Finished?

--IHP

[Palmares]

Originally posted by i hate [email protected] 10 2003, 02:49 PM
Hows things AK? Hit any pubs you little pisshead? I&#39;m back in Australia now, and it&#39;s pretty boring I might add. The dogs you sent for me were too ugly, try again my lad.

I did leave in disgust and I will do it once more. Once the member who is calling me names realizes that I wasn&#39;t having a go at him. Though on this board I find it unlikely. Too many peacocks.

I might add, however, that although you and I disagree on Norm, you don&#39;t find it necessary to abuse me. Well done AK.

--IHP
Good to see you back I HATE PiGEONS&#33;

It only seems like yesterday when you and AK had a beef. Your quote perpetuated it. But let us spread thel ove of solidarity and stop this stupid name calling.

Just wondering, but what does SN think upon this thred at this current moment???

[Palmares]

Originally posted by i hate [email protected] 11 2003, 12:14 PM
I will say this one last time. You and I have different opinions on Norm. OK? That is all. No need for names and groups of members who are true and those who are not.

Have we made progress? I don&#39;t have anything against you, I never have, but I don&#39;t understand why you have to constantly retort with no new information than we already know. Finished?

--IHP
Well said. Now fucking stop this stupid bickering&#33;&#33;&#33;

I may be forced to scratch my balls&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry:

*reaches for genitalia region, then pauses* ... :blink:

[Michael De Panama]

Ugh. This isn&#39;t worth the effort.

There are more important things to worry about than whether or not you like what some people have to say on a fucking message board. I don&#39;t need to say anything more. I believe in freedom of speech, I believe that we should embrace opposing points of view, and I believe in a cause that is far more important than petty internet message board politics.

[IHP]

Thank you Mike, and Cthen. the genital scratching can now stop. About the AK thing. We did have a few blues to begin with, but when I was in Lodon I got severely drunk with him and some other members of this board and made amends.

I was trying to say that in the face of being labelled. Perhaps this will come to a close. Hell, I would be laughing at us if I was reading this.

--IHP

[suffianr]

Good to see you back I HATE PiGEONS&#33;

You are the sure? I think it is the International House of Pancakes, yes? :lol:

Fuck you, Akbar.

[Invader Zim]

YES he&#39;s gone, Normans been banned again... perhaps this is 4th time lucky.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by i hate [email protected] 11 2003, 02:14 AM
For crying out soft.

Where did I start calling you names? I don&#39;t recall nor can I see where this has happened.

Bona Fide? Why all the seperation into bona fide, and whatever else your club incorporates, and people who differ in opnion. In what sense are you part of this bona fide club? I have been here longer, I have more posts...that is irrelevent yes? Yes. So is having some clique that excludes people.

You have your little treehouse party with bona fide members.

The reason I posted in this thread was because I agreed with him, in that the board quality has declined in a serious manner. That is all.

I will say this one last time. You and I have different opinions on Norm. OK? That is all. No need for names and groups of members who are true and those who are not.

Have we made progress? I don&#39;t have anything against you, I never have, but I don&#39;t understand why you have to constantly retort with no new information than we already know. Finished?

--IHP
Loook matey / chummy /sonny you may th9nk you have a divine right to have the last word; I dont happen to agree.

You want to stop ? Then just bloody stop. While you are at it stop insisting that I stop; you have no idea how many times I&#39;ve seen jumped up little prats like yourself start an argument lob a few names (they always but always discount whatever name they throw out as &#39;inoccuous&#39; - which in this case it actually was, but still a name); and then say &#39;I dont see why YOU wont drop the argument&#39;.

Its dead simple if you wanted to agree with Norm, then you could have done so; howverer you did not do that. You dcvided to take issue with me for disagreeing.

AS to bona fides. Its really pretty simple - This is a club for Socialists, people who are judged to be socialists are given full membership, people who are not, are not. Number of posts dont come into it.

I could up my post count by posting numerous snippets of &#39;RAJ RAH UP with [whoever]&#39; etc. ? but I choose not to.

Its not a clique here. Its a simple case that it is not an open to all forum. Its a socialist one, run by socialists, funded by socialist, for the purpose of advancing socialism. You tosspots are allowed in under sufferance and on condition you behave. Norm does not, thats why he has been banned several times - An honouable chap would not then repeatedly masquerade as someone else.

[IHP]

EDIT: Double Post

[IHP]

I don&#39;t understand your passion for this thread. Why are you being so condescending?

I never thought that I had the &#39;divine right&#39; to have the last word. Hence my last question: "Finished?" It was just a lead on word for you to somewhat accept that we have differing points of view. That is all.

Can you point out exactly where I called you names, because I can&#39;t remember calling anyone names in this forum.

I didn&#39;t take issue with you for not liking Norm, I merely said that you had gone in a different direction than the thread was intended. I also pointed out that you shouldn&#39;t speak on other peoples behalf.

You say this bona fide membership is for socialists? Just socialists. First, why does opinion on a poster on a message board have to do with economics? Second, this club excludes other leftists who are not socialists? Indeed it sounds like a clique. Tell me this is not so.

So I post "RAJ RAH UP"? What on earth is that? I don&#39;t post that, whatever it is. If you refer to chit-chatters, then that is not so. The majority of my posts is insode this very forum.

Why am I a tosspot / prat / etc. that is barely tolerated here? I am accepted in all forums. Why would this be any different? You are throwing out labels far too readily. As I said, I have nothing against you, but I don&#39;t understand your anger at me for having a different opinion of such a miniscule scope.

--IHP

[Vinny Rafarino]

AS to bona fides. Its really pretty simple - This is a club for Socialists, people who are judged to be socialists are given full membership, people who are not, are not. Number of posts dont come into it.



Hmm, very interesting. So, who exactly does the "socialist judging"? Do you have to do tricks or anything? Perhaps it&#39;s the socialist bathing suit contest" that&#39;s the ticket. Damn and I forgot to shave my back. But what if I do really really good in the "talent" portion of the pageant? Do you think I have a shot?

Tell me what you think of my closing statement;


"Like, ummmm....If I were like world president...I would like make sure every kid had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to eat and that there was world peace"


I&#39;m gonna knock their fucking socks off with that.

[sc4r]

THe board is owned by a chap called Malte and ultimately he has the authority by virtue of the fact that he owns it to decide how membership is accorded.

It is actually moderated by people appointed by malte and they have delegated decision making powers.

But in point of fact most issues are voted on, and all MEMBERS, people who are allowed in the CC, are allowed to partcipate in such votes.

That is the reality. Whinging that you would like it to have some other reality is meaningless.

Cappies, Nazi&#39;s, Fascists, conservatives etc. are never given full membership. Presumably becuse malte believes that if they were they would cause the board to be other than he likes it to be. I agree with him.

He also chooses to exclude some types of socialist. Those who are often labelled Stalinists (and I assume he would include RAF in this). I dont happen to agree that this is a good dea, probably because I am pretty much borderline myself in this respect. But it is still a fact.

This is not a democratic club open to all comers. That again is reality.

If one cannot deal with realities then one really needs to work on doing so. I agree that quite a number of the Communist / Amnarchist fraternity also have problems in this respect but it is academic as far as this thread goes.

Pinochet - NO mate I long ago stopped bothering to direct people like yourself back to where &#39;they started it&#39;. If you genuinely wished to find out you could do so very easily. Again the reality is that you have pissed me off, the reality may also be that I pissed you off. Nothing else actually matters; I&#39;m not on trial, and I dont have to provide &#39;eveidence&#39;. Now run along and play with your junior friends.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Uhh. Right

[IHP]

Well, sc4r, I must be a part of this bona fide club then. So being a part of commie club means you&#39;re bona fide? Well heck, cowboy, saddle up.

"THe board is owned by a chap called Malte and ultimately he has the authority by virtue of the fact that he owns it to decide how membership is accorded.

It is actually moderated by people appointed by malte and they have delegated decision making powers.

But in point of fact most issues are voted on, and all MEMBERS, people who are allowed in the CC, are allowed to partcipate in such votes."

Yes, I know all of that. You&#39;re exactly right, and in such circumstances in can be discussed between members with differing thoughts on the matter. Thus a conclusion satisfactory to as many as possible is aquired. It also allows for different members to voice their opinions, as does this forum.

You&#39;re not going to show me where I "started it," because I didn&#39;t ever call you names...excluding &#39;cowboy&#39; just in this post. I have looked, looked again, and yet I fail to see where I have called you any names. The reality is you haven&#39;t pissed me off, until this ageist &#39;run along with your junior friends.&#39; That&#39;s totally unnecessary. How old are you to be so against people younger than you? You must really dislike a lot of members of this board.

--IHP

[sc4r]

Well of course you have looked and could not find it. Thats because as I said you wont realise when you yourself are getting into offensive and combative territory. Almost no-one ever does. Let me give you a clue - When you decide to say &#39;First off I&#39;m not your buddy&#39; you are being agressive, it begs for an escalation, and of course therefore it escalates.

Now look at the post you made before that and try to imagine if there is anything in it that just might have made me inclined towards a very slightly dismissive honorific (like &#39;buddy&#39;). Read it as I may have read it, not as you may have thought I would. Of course their is little point in arguing as I am with a tart.

Now look again.

I have no particular dislike of younger people. They are very commonly excessively arrogant and convinced of their own infallibility, typically they actually understand far less than they think they do, and dont realise it, but thats all, I was the same.

My insults about your age and maturity are intended to insult you in particular, not younger members in general. If you think that becoming older makes you tolerant of fools think again, it does not. I dont pretend to be tolerant or &#39;nice&#39;; I&#39;m not. If you choose to fight me whether with words (as here) or in any other way I&#39;ll fight to win, and to hurt you. Thus far we are merely gently sparring, but if you choose to become a full time opponent on a personal level I can assure you I&#39;ll find ways to be a hell of a lot meaner.

On the other hand if you wish to express diferent views which you think about and which dont hinge upon accepting as true either contradictions or &#39;just so&#39;s&#39; and honestly accept that I may have different opinions, some of which are likely to be correct just by virtue of the fact that I have had a quarter of a century to see the contradiction in my own views (which almost certainly would have included at some point in my life some of the views you now hold), we will develop a respect for each other.

It is up to you really. If you want to learn then you can. If you want to teach I can assure you that you are not yet up to it. If you feel you may nevertheless have insights which I can learn from you are probably right. But do not think for one second that you are my equal yet in understanding, the chances of that are vanishingly small.

I dont expect to convince you overnight. Why should I? at your age I was probably even more arrogant than you are. I would never have accepted the word of someone else just because they said so. BUT what I always did was to desire true understanding and eventually realise that this is a pursuit not a destination. I am farther along the road than you, thats all.

But I am not a natural teacher. I do not possess patience or a forgiving nature. I am and always have been first and foremost a fighter. If you wish to learn from me then you must approach me as if I were an honoured elder who will expect to talk to you in ways you may not talk to me.

I do not care that you may find this patronising or unfair. It is the way of life and learning. The older do not care to hear the younger backchat them. If you are wise you will learn this.

If you desire to be acknowleged as right, then you are destined for a life of disappointment; if you desire a life of continually improved understanding then you must first seek out the faults in yourself and recognise yourself both as you are, and as others may see you.

All this is up to you. I have no particular feelings on it eitjher way. Right now you are to me merely one among thousands of young fools, few of whom will ever develop beyond being misguided and self obsessed preeners.

[IHP]

The thing about "i&#39;m not your buddy" ws said for two reasons. Unlike you, I don&#39;t require mental masturbation to explain exactly why I said it, but here goes anyway. Calling someone your buddy entails friendship. With you I have not friendship, why should I be thus deemed your buddy? Secondly in such a disagreement calling someone &#39;buddy&#39; is condescending at best, outright arrogance at worst. I didn&#39;t feel the need to point out all this but it has now become necessary. Don&#39;t worry, I knew where you were headed with those accusations that I had started it. Which for someone who has lived for twenty five years should have grown out of.

A tart? A prat? Junior? Fool? Preener? Such arguments. Apart from abusing me, you have only said to me, apart from the ageism, is exactly what I have been saying to you. We have different opinions, case closed yet you insist on abusing me. You have a go at some subtle, interpretable arrogance on my part, and abuse me at the same time. Take a long-hard look at yourself.

How can you on one hand abuse me for arrogance, claiming that I need to grow up and accept other points of view or be &#39;convinced&#39; that I&#39;m wrong, when you cannot accept that I have a different point of view. Indeed I am five years younger than you, and your self-righteous attitude may as well have a spinning red light on it.

I dont expect to convince you overnight. Why should I? at your age I was probably even more arrogant than you are. I would never have accepted the word of someone else just because they said so. BUT what I always did was to desire true understanding and eventually realise that this is a pursuit not a destination. I am farther along the road than you, thats all"

The scale of this has just grown about thirty fold. This is a minor dispute about someone who posts on this board. Not as you laboriously decribe here.

However your comments about you not possessing a forgiving nature. I do not wish for forgiveness from you, nor do I see why this should be desired. You are once again blowing the scale of this to much deeper depths than necessary.

I admit when I know I am wrong. This has been displayed on this board when I have conceded facts which I mistook. However this is a case of opinion. It is not based on facts, or ideology etc. Simply an opinion on a matter so rediculously miniscule it is totally insignificant in the scheme of things. Several times I have suggested that this be over with and as such explained that I have nothing against you. Totally non-aggressive and not entering what you call &#39;combative territory.&#39; As you explain you are older and thus much wiser and more mature, I would have thought that you would have accepted my offer to finish and forgotten about it.

I feel years older than you, and I certainly know that you need to apply your own advice to your self and acknowledge the futility of all of this.

This is my final post on this matter. You surely will reply as is your &#39;divine right to have the last word.&#39; You are by-and-large the most precious, holier than thou member I have encountered on this website. Grow up and get over your little childish murmurings.

--IHP

[sc4r]

You are a young fool who cannot read what is being said but only the words (and in fact only some of them even)

thats it.

[Urban Rubble]

Blah blah blah blah fucking blah.

sc4r, no offense, but you seem to be quite the whiner, and the instigator.

How&#39;s it going IHP ? Where you been ? Site starting to get you down ?

[IHP]

Hey mate, yeah I wasn&#39;t around too much when I was overseas. Then when I came back the site had degenerated into a severe state. I cracked the shits for a few weeks then made some tentative steps towards posting regularly again.

You haven&#39;t been around too much either...where have you been?

--IHP

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 01:38 AM

Good to see you back I HATE PiGEONS&#33;

You are the sure? I think it is the International House of Pancakes, yes? :lol:

Fuck you, Akbar.

"I like cookies, i no like the mall it is rich people hang out. I like soccer too, you do yes?"

or


"i hate IHP, international house of pancakes ebcause there is fat little boy who stands in aisle and starres at me while i eat the pancakes"

FUCK YOU UN-AKBAR...

FUCK YOU ANTI-AKBAR&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

[Urban Rubble]

I&#39;ve been in Atlanta. Shitty, hot Atlanta.

[IHP]

Not much fun then? Fair enough. I wish I wasn&#39;t back home to be honest, Melbourne is not really doing it for these days.

--IHP

[Urban Rubble]

Fuck, I wish I was "down under". I&#39;ve always wanted to live down there. Good beaches, cool wildlife, and good skateparks (one of which is on a nude beach).

Where were you before Melbourne ?

P.S Ever seen the movie Romper Stomper ? That&#39;s a crazy Aussie movie. A guy I know played one of the skinheads.

[IHP]

Australia&#39;s OK. This is where I live, I just came from Hong Kong (among other places&#33;) a few weeks ago.

Beaches are good, wildlife and that&#39;s good as well. I always hike around the places in Victoria when I can find the time...and the money.

Romper Stomper is a good movie. Russel Crowe is a fucknut though. Who was your mate? As in, who did he play?

--IHP

[Palmares]

I live in TASMANIA&#33;~&#33;~&#33;

HaHa&#33;

I&#39;m down under, down under&#33;

BTW, Linden, don&#39;t you like Melbourne?

[IHP]

"Down under, down under"

That where you Taswegians should bloody well stay. No incest on the mainland thank you...well except for Geelong. At least you don&#39;t live in Queensland, they&#39;re madder than cut snakes.

Melbourne&#39;s ok. Just a little sick of it now that I have lived it up in New York and Moscow etc.

--IHP

[Danton]

Funny, if you critisize the mod squad the thread completley dissappears.....

[IHP]

Eh? Who&#39;s doing what now?

[Danton]

I did, in another thread which subsequentley dissappeared, I was just miffed and wondered if I wrote about it here - if it would dissappear or be edited also....

[dopediana]

Originally posted by i hate [email protected] 19 2003, 12:01 PM
At least you don&#39;t live in Queensland, they&#39;re madder than cut snakes.

Melbourne&#39;s ok. Just a little sick of it now that I have lived it up in New York and Moscow etc.

--IHP
my grandpa lives in queensland. he&#39;s not madder than a cut snake, but he snores very loudly.

[IHP]

Danton, you ain&#39;t goin&#39;a try and get this thread deleted are you?

amaryllis, believe you me, he&#39;s probably crazy, you wanna see what their premier looks like? He&#39;s a typical Queenslander.

--IHP