The Official Welcome Back Rasp/Trout and Hopper/Taint Thread

[TroutBum]

Well, I'm certainly not catcher. Come to think of it, I'm not the pitcher either.

This is funny on so many levels.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Semantics ducky, YOU'RE THE ONE! You make trolling OH SO FUN!

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Since I can't respond in kind until I spread some more rep, I'll pretend you're anxiously awaiting an immediate reply and do what I can to oblige.

How do you go from being a non-factor Jazz fan on the old forum to an obnoxious douche nozzle on this one? You're like David Stern, but more annoying. -2, *** wipe. <3, Trout.

Graduated in May, waiting for bar results/job searching. I get up everyday, lay by the pool and go to the gym. There is nothing else on my schedule really. Turns out a witch hunt where the witch continuously makes the hunters look like fools is pretty entertaining and can be done in between games of Modern Warfare 2. I hope that answers your question. <3 Clutch.

 

[moevillini]

so clutch, all your base are belong to us


rwnd

 

[moevillini]

so clutch, all your base are belong to us


rwnd

just in case you didn't get it

 

[C l u t c H 385]

_

Moevi, please don't post twice in a row. It just about impossible to use the website right now.

 

[Hopper]

Since I can't respond in kind until I spread some more rep, I'll pretend you're anxiously awaiting an immediate reply and do what I can to oblige.

How do you go from being a non-factor Jazz fan on the old forum to an obnoxious douche nozzle on this one? You're like David Stern, but more annoying. -2, *** wipe. <3, Trout.How do you go from being a non-factor Jazz fan on the old forum to an obnoxious douche nozzle on this one? You're like David Stern, but more annoying. -2, *** wipe. <3, Trout.

“Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated.” (George Bernard Shaw)

 

[moevillini]

Moevi, please don't post twice in a row. It just about impossible to use the website right now._

sorry, i couldn't hear you.


Perhaps I'll report your post for backseat moderating. They may not have covered that topic in your law school curriculum, so if you're confused, I guess all that tuition was wasted.

You are also needlessly using quote tags, and I believe you are doing this intentionally to mock the rules, which to my way of thinking, falls into the category of trolling. Again, perhaps not a topic covered in your law school curriculum. However, most folks with common sense understand these things. You probably really do understand, I don't know.

 

[Hopper]

Moevi, please don't post twice in a row. It just about impossible to use the website right now.

I sho nuff hopez Mo don't go gittin her po sef no infractions, er nuthin, eh, Clutch?

If you are posting without quoting anyone, do so ONCE rather than in three separate back-to-back-to-back posts.

Edit: Wait, what am I even thinkin, I ax ya? Mo's a mod, she can do any damn thang she wants, eh? Nevvaminez.

 

[colton]

Hmmm, now the justification of "spamming" comes up for the first time.

The justification is board usability. "Spamming" was just an expression I used to indicate a flood of typically non-desired messages. It was not intended to imply that the rule against commercial spam was invoked.

Could you REALLY not have figured that one out on your own?

 

[C l u t c H 385]

I sho nuff hopez Mo don't go gittin her po sef no infractions, er nuthin, eh, Clutch?

Zactly, Hopper, just lookin out fo 'er own best interest. Do what I can, really.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

The justification is board usability. "Spamming" was just an expression I used to indicate a flood of typically non-desired messages. It was not intended to imply that the rule against commercial spam was invoked.

Could you REALLY not have figured that one out on your own?

If this is all about desire, I assure you there are people who do desire the posts. Problem solved. You're welcome. ADR bill will be in the mail.

 

[Hopper]

The justification is board usability. "Spamming" was just an expression I used to indicate a flood of typically non-desired messages. It was not intended to imply that the rule against commercial spam was invoked.

Could you REALLY not have figured that one out on your own?

Yeah, colton, I knew ya couldn't really mean that. I was actually more interested to see if you would answer the question I asked when I made that post, know what I'm sayin?

 

[Hopper]

If this is all about desire, I assure you there are people who do desire the posts. Problem solved. You're welcome. ADR bill will be in the mail.

I think you might be missin the whole point here, eh, Clutch? It aint got nuthin to do with what people want. It's all about what people DON"T want, see? Ya can't play hero, and save somebody, unless there's a victim. In order for there to be a victim, there has to be somebody who DON"T want sumthin, and who is bein severely abused, annoyed, even, ya might say. Only then can the superhero swoop down for the save, the glory, and the eternal gratitude of the victim.

 

[colton]

Yeah, colton, I knew ya couldn't really mean that. I was actually more interested to see if you would answer the question I asked when I made that post, know what I'm sayin?

About whether that would have been the extent of my consideration if you had appealed the decision to me? I probably would have re-read the thread to judge the extent of the problem myself, and asked input from the moderators who hadn't already weighed in with opinions in the moderator board. Odds are high that I wouldn't have reversed the infraction unless the other moderators (3 or more) disagreed with the three who had issued the infraction.

 

[Hopper]

About whether that would have been the extent of my consideration if you had appealed the decision to me? I probably would have re-read the thread to judge the extent of the problem myself, and asked input from the moderators who hadn't already weighed in with opinions in the moderator board. Odds are high that I wouldn't have reversed the infraction unless the other moderators (3 or more) disagreed with the three who had issued the infraction.

OK, Colton, that's about what I thought. Thanks for the reply. I take you would NOT have asked for any input from me.

 

[Hopper]

So, there's a guy on this board, who shall remain unidentified, that I don't like. Matter of fact, I HATE the guy. I would like to kill him, and I would if I thought I could get away with it. He's kinda a bum, so I'll just call him Bum.

So, of course, first thing I do is put the guy on ignore. Then I see a thread where he made the last post, and I ax myself: Should I click on it?

My first thought is this here: Hell, no! I don't care what that guy has to say, that's why I put him on ignore. Even if I clicked on the thread, I couldn't read what he said, because, for my own protection, I have put him on ignore. Saves me a ton of aggravation, because if I even see a word he says I fly into a murderous rampage. He aint worth it. I'll end up doin long time, or maybe get the chair. Best just leave it be.

But, then, I get to thinkin a little more, see? Who knows, maybe I can detect some grounds for playin the victim if I click on it. Then I can go runnin to the mods, beggin for their help. They will be very eager to assist me, and punish the Bum, I betcha.

So I click on it. Surprise, surprise!! Bum not only made the last post, but he made the last TWO posts! So I P.M. every mod on the board. I tell them I've been VICTIMIZED. Brutally abused to the point of actually bein annoyed, ya know? That's all they need to hear.

Works every damn time, I tellya!

Edit: Maybe I should disclose that this is just a fable, eh? That's what I do in my spare time--I try to emulate Aesop, and all, ya know? Thing is, I aint creative like that guy. He could dream up fables about sheep, lions, crows, you name it. Me, I can only cook up fables about one class: VICTIMS.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

sorry, i couldn't hear you.


Perhaps I'll report your post for backseat moderating. They may not have covered that topic in your law school curriculum, so if you're confused, I guess all that tuition was wasted.

You are also needlessly using quote tags, and I believe you are doing this intentionally to mock the rules, which to my way of thinking, falls into the category of trolling. Again, perhaps not a topic covered in your law school curriculum. However, most folks with common sense understand these things. You probably really do understand, I don't know.

Try to help somebody out and this is the thanks ya get. Sheesh.

 

[Hopper]

You are also needlessly using quote tags, and I believe you are doing this intentionally to mock the rules...

Damn, Mo, now you're gittin me all kinda confused again, eh? Is they a "rule" about quote tags, or aint they?

...which to my way of thinking, falls into the category of trolling.

I'm really startin to warm up to this "trolling" characterization, eh!? It's like some kinda miracle fluid, ya know? One that will clean your floors, run your car better than hi-test gasoline, disintegrate oil spills, and best of all, light your candle, like Everclear, I tellya! It ROCKS! It will do ANY job, anywhere, anytime.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Damn, Mo, now you're gittin me all kinda confused again, eh? Is they a "rule" about quote tags, or aint they?

You're supposed to use them, but I'm not, from what I can gather.