Originally posted by no1marauderI only counted 4 threads by STANG on the first page. Three of them had CAPS. All of them were indeed a bit different, but none of them were worth reading. They all had the same stupid repetitive messages. I think I posted once or twice in one of them. But, all I ever get from STANG is "Violence leads to violence", or something to that effect. All standard STANG responses. Never any original thought, just the same s**t over and over again.
That's BS, BF; since when do people get banned for using CAPS?? Blindfaith101 would have been executed by now. 6 threads started, so what?? dj2becker does that every week in Spirituality and Ivanhoe started about 20 Terry Schiavo threads a few months ago with no banning. He's been staying on-topic and most of his threads are not duplicates of ...[text shortened]... t over your personal dislike of the man and apply the same rules to STANG that you do to others.
He also loves to bump up his threads when no one is paying attention to him. Which is also why some of his threads end up at the top of the list. If all RHP posters did this, we would get no actual discussion. Just a bunch of people wanting attention by bumping their threads and repeating the same s**t over and over again. Maybe that's something that you wouldn't mind, but I think many others would.
Originally posted by lioyankThis one makes sense to me.
I only counted 4 threads by STANG on the first page. Three of them had CAPS. All of them were indeed a bit different, but none of them were worth reading. They all had the same stupid repetitive messages. I think I posted once or twice in one of them. But, all I ever get from STANG is "Violence leads to violence", or something to that effect. All standard ...[text shortened]... and over again. Maybe that's something that you wouldn't mind, but I think many others would.
Being new here I didn't realise that STANG was just another attentionwhore-spammer .. I get it now and agree .. nothing to gain from a response as all he has is repetition of the same innane platitudes, condecending BS.
I thought you had to be at least 13 to come on here.
Somebody needs to check STANGs ID.
No I didn't!
Yes you did!
Didn't!
Did!
Didn't
Did ... ad nausum
...... you get the idea .. a childs argument without content.
AKA spam
Originally posted by jammerSince when have people's posts been judged I how their political opponents judge their substantive content?? There are plenty of posters here who post cliches, platitudes, etc. but I don't see them banned. Is STANG is the same league as SVW for nonsensical drivel? This is BS.
This one makes sense to me.
Being new here I didn't realise that STANG was just another attentionwhore-spammer .. I get it now and agree .. nothing to gain from a response as all he has is repetition of the same innane platitudes, condecending BS.
I thought you had to be at least 13 to come on here.
Somebody needs to check STANGs ID.
No I didn't!
Ye ...[text shortened]... n't
Did ... ad nausum
...... you get the idea .. a childs argument without content.
AKA spam
Originally posted by lioyankNext SVW NIGHT we'll see if you feel the same way.
I only counted 4 threads by STANG on the first page. Three of them had CAPS. All of them were indeed a bit different, but none of them were worth reading. They all had the same stupid repetitive messages. I think I posted once or twice in one of them. But, all I ever get from STANG is "Violence leads to violence", or something to that effect. All standard ...[text shortened]... and over again. Maybe that's something that you wouldn't mind, but I think many others would.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo. Most people thought SVW didn't make ANY sense. I was one of them. Until I really started reading his posts and paying attention to his insinuations. He started making sense. Not 100% of the time, but a lot of the time. Now you can call ME crazy and non-sensical for saying that, and I wouldn't mind at all. The fact is, I saw something in SVW that many others maybe either didn't care to see, didn't want to see, or couldn't see. His "nonsensical drivel" DID make sense.
Is STANG is the same league as SVW for nonsensical drivel? This is BS.
STANG's drivel on the other hand, is boring. It is the same thing over and over again. And it's not even packaged differently. It's the same package, with the same "gift" inside, each and every time. The fact is, SVW made me think; STANG just annoys me. As he does many others. STANG and SVW aren't even in the same class.
What pains me even more is that there were two people whose posts I truly enjoyed reading on this forum: You and SVW. Now that SVW is gone and you are (supposedly) leaving, I see these forums going downhill. Fast. If the only consistent poster I'm left with is STANG, then these forums will become a wasteland. Sure, we'll probably still have Ivanhoe, but it wont be the same.
ANYWAY..... back to this topic (before I become a hi-jacker). You want my honest opinion? My honest opinion is that there probably isn't enough "flooding" to ban STANG. However, his arrogance, his bumping of threads, and his repetitiveness is quite annoying. Therefore, I will certainly not lose any sleep over his banning.
Now, you being the liberal that you are, will most likely come at me with something like, "How can you be a hypocrite; just because he's annoying doesnt give a mod the right to ban him". I look forward to your response.
Originally posted by lioyankWell lioyank I'll try to help keep these forums interesting, but all I ever have to offer are smartassed remarks and bad attempts at humor.
No. Most people thought SVW didn't make ANY sense. I was one of them. Until I really started reading his posts and paying attention to his insinuations. He started making sense. Not 100% of the time, but a lot of the time. Now you can call ME crazy and non-sensical for saying that, and I wouldn't mind at all. The fact is, I saw something in SVW that many o ...[text shortened]... ecause he's annoying doesnt give a mod the right to ban him". I look forward to your response.
Originally posted by lioyankI don't consider myself "liberal" (against gun control, hate crime legislation, for tougher immigration laws, etc.) but "lefty" libertarian. Anyway, I already posted this in the "VIOLENCE LEADS TO VIOLENCE" thread, so I might as well repeat it here:
No. Most people thought SVW didn't make ANY sense. I was one of them. Until I really started reading his posts and paying attention to his insinuations. He started making sense. Not 100% of the time, but a lot of the time. Now you can call ME crazy and non-sensical for saying that, and I wouldn't mind at all. The fact is, I saw something in SVW that many o ...[text shortened]... ecause he's annoying doesnt give a mod the right to ban him". I look forward to your response.
How exactly is he "annoying people"?? By saying things people don't like? So what; this is a frickin Debate Forum for Zeus' sakes! If you don't want to be annoyed by his posts, DON'T READ THEM! If he was spamming or trolling that's one thing, but he's not doing either right now. And he is also staying on-topic (mostly) when he does post. If he's banned, it's BS.
BTW, I still have 25 games to finish and one more tournament final to be in + I renewed my sub, so I'll be around for a while. I'm sure SVW will be back, too, though I find his posts unreadable (he has some ideas in there but they're usually buried in "commies" "chimps" and "snarks"; but I wouldn't ban him). STANG raises legitimate points even if he is repetitive and he also does usually respond to posts that address his points though most people don't and simply ridicule him. I say if people want to ridicule and insult STANG, fine; but banning him because he's "annoying" is too much of a vessel that you can pour anything in for my taste.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder
Go to pages 20, 21 and 22 and you will find 16 threads started by Ivanhoe either with the name "Schiavo" in the title or discussing "euthanasia". There's probably a few more sprinkled around, so "about 20" is no exaggeration.
Liar !
Stirring the shit again or just acting out your personal vendettas ?
There are many people in these forums who tend to put similar themes in many of their posts. Blindfaith101 is going to talk about THE WORD OF GOD, Ivanhoe's going to spout about the "Culture of Death", I'm going to talk about the Framers and Lockean Fundamental Rights theory, etc. etc. STANG pretty much only posts about US foreign policy and his conclusion is that it is too aggressive and that "Violence leads to Violence". Certainly that is a legitimate opinion to have and express in a Debates Forum. Perhaps the way he argues it is poor and unpersuasive, but that's a matter of style. I don't feel that he is doing anything so out of line that he should be banned. I recognize that this is a privately owned site and the Admins can censor as they please, but this forum is advertised as one where controversial opinions can be aired in a "heated" fashion. Can it really be said that STANG is over those lines??
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "I recognize that this is a privately owned site and the Admins can censor as they please, ...."
There are many people in these forums who tend to put similar themes in many of their posts. Blindfaith101 is going to talk about THE WORD OF GOD, Ivanhoe's going to spout about the "Culture of Death", I'm going to talk about the Framers and Lockean Fundamental Rights theory, etc. etc. STANG pretty much only posts about US foreign policy and h ...[text shortened]... ons can be aired in a "heated" fashion. Can it really be said that STANG is over those lines??
That's news coming from your mouth ..... did you change your stance fitting the occasion or is there something else going on ?
Originally posted by no1marauderMaybe he's just not living up to my expectations of a "good" response. I did indeed ridicule him (the "smurfs"😉, BUT only after he responded to my original post with "Anyway, Bush is a ......etc. etc.". Which had nothing to do with my original question. That's when the "smurfs" came out.
...and he also does usually respond to posts that address his points though most people don't and simply ridicule him.