- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd in that alert you can indeed petition the mods to have someone banned based on the
More fruitcakery! You cannot petition the site administration to have someone banned! All you can do is submit an alert and leave it to the sound judgement of the site administration.
post/posts you are alerting.
I know this because I have done so, many times, with posts of dasa's.
It is therefore CLEARLY possible to petition the mods to have someone banned, a fact which
you clearly must know and thus you are yet again lying through your teeth.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneI think the only way you can not think that the argument that has been going on here
I thought the conversation we were having regarding Robbie crying to the mods and having them delete all evidence of his statements here and then having Duchess banned was a hell of a lot more interesting than the latest episode of "The FMF and Robbie Show" we've all been subjected to for the last five pages.
We understand the motives. FMF trying to app ...[text shortened]... ulation of the mods. Truthfully, I'd be surprised if anyone's still here. Well done, boys. 😞
is not about robbie crying to the mods to have d64 banned for telling the truth while
being female is because of your deep seated dislike of and bias against FMF.
And frankly, given that is the topic, I would like as much of robbie's lying and twisting
on display as possible as it provides more evidence for the original and true claim
that he lies and disseminates as easy as breathing as well as the fact that he makes
abhorrent claims such as the ones d64 accused him of... And which we all know he
made, and said so in the thread that only d64 got banned in.
I accused robbie of exactly the same things, and in that same thread, and have not
received so much as a warning let alone a ban. And I am far from the only one that
applies to.
Robbie is obviously so pathetic a misogynist and coward that he can only take criticism from people
he thinks are male. Yet another defect in a character so over-brimming with defects to begin
with.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeNo Dasa was the very epitome of humility, its personification, its embodiment, its essence and its being. Never the less like any human he had his little foibles and idiosyncrasies. Furthermore as author of the greatest and most versatile appellation on the internet, 'boofhead', we should allow him a little leeway. Duchess64 by contrast has provided nothing of originality except the usual, 'you're a liar, you're a hypocrite, i detest you, you're contemptible' etc etc and as a consequence must suffer the full penalty of law for her lack of imagination.
You don't think Dasa needed to learn a little humility, a little self reflection?!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd you felt you had the judgement do decide which should be punished.
No Dasa was the very epitome of humility, its personification, its embodiment, its essence and its being. Never the less like any human he had his little foibles and idiosyncrasies. Furthermore as author of the greatest and most versatile appellation on the internet, 'boofhead', we should allow him a little leeway. Duchess64 by contrast has provide ...[text shortened]... e' etc etc and as a consequence must suffer the full penalty of law for her lack of imagination.
The very epitome of 'the Thought Police'.
The one thing we have established in this thread is that you are very much in favour of thought policing, as long as it is you doing the policing. You object to anyone else doing it.
13 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually I don't think you understand the concept of 'the thought police'.
And you felt you had the judgement do decide which should be punished.
The very epitome of 'the Thought Police'.
The one thing we have established in this thread is that you are very much in favour of thought policing, as long as it is you doing the policing. You object to anyone else doing it.
Orwell's Thought Police are charged with uncovering and punishing "thoughtcrime" and thought-criminals. They use psychological methods and omnipresent surveillance (such as telescreens) to search, find, monitor, and arrest members of society who could potentially challenge authority and the status quo—even if only by thought—hence the name Thought Police - wikipedia.
Now given that definition it is clear that what Duchess64 did was not to challenge authority or the status quo, it was merely the vindictive act of someone who was intent on vilifying another user through the use of vile and slanderous insinuation. This is quite different than what Dasa did which was to challenge prevailing perceptions and attitudes of society. Thus his attacks on 'corrupt science', which he perceived as projecting falsehoods.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo to clarify, you object to Duchess64 vilifying you, but not to Dasa vilifying an entire religion?!
Actually I don't think you understand the concept of 'the thought police'.
Orwell's Thought Police are charged with uncovering and punishing "thoughtcrime" and thought-criminals. They use psychological methods and omnipresent surveillance (such as telescreens) to search, find, monitor, and arrest members of society who could potentially challenge ...[text shortened]... of society. Thus his attacks on 'corrupt science', which he perceived as projecting falsehoods.
Step away from the keyboard sir, step away from the keyboard...
(Edit - As an aside, why do you continually play down what Dasa wrote, describing it as 'challenging prevailing perceptions' and the like, when in reality he was advocating genocide?)
13 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI understand the concept very well. You on the other hand have attempted to bastardise it now that your hypocrisy has been pointed out.
Actually I don't think you understand the concept of 'the thought police'.
The very fact that you are categorising different types of thoughts and judging some acceptable and some unacceptable is the very epitome of 'thought policing'.
And you are a hypocrite, but we've known that for a long time.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI don't think that calling for the genocide of all Muslims was in any way a reality, it was a nothing more than a kind of grotesque apocalyptic fantasy and I rejected those who tried to justify it on the basis that it could have been carried out. It was nonsense to think so. Duchess64's attempted vilification was being carried out and her nefarious machinations were very real and thereon lies the difference. She was apprehended and sent to room 101 for rehabilitation! I am quite sure that advocating genocide for every Muslim challenges prevailing perceptions sir.
So to clarify, you object to Duchess64 vilifying you, but not to Dasa vilifying an entire religion?!
Step away from the keyboard sir, step away from the keyboard...
(Edit - As an aside, why do you continually play down what Dasa wrote, describing it as 'challenging prevailing perceptions' and the like, when in reality he was advocating genocide?)
13 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo you don't that is why you made the mistake that you did in assuming that what Duchess64 did and what Dasa did were synonymous. Now you know because I have educated you and you should be thankful you ungrateful wretch!
I understand the concept very well. You on the other hand have attempted to bastardise it now that your hypocrisy has been pointed out.
The very fact that you are categorising different types of thoughts and judging some acceptable and some unacceptable is the very epitome of 'thought policing'.
And you are a hypocrite, but we've known that for a long time.
13 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut unless you are the Thought Police, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
I don't think that calling for the genocide of all Muslims was in any way a reality, it was a nothing more than a kind of grotesque apocalyptic fantasy and I rejected those who tried to justify it on the basis that it could have been carried out.
13 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI made no such assumption. I merely pointed out that you chose to distinguish between them, rightly or wrongly, and then chose to act, and thus you were 'policing' their thoughts.
No you don't that is why you made the mistake that you did in assuming that what Duchess64 did and what Dasa did were synonymous.