"Be a czar, not bizarre"
-
no Oakman, i'm not CSS...and i've never done anything to make you think that, nor have i been given an opportunity to prove i am not. yes i might not have been an active member in the last six months, but i have been an active reader in the last few years. you seriously believe that CSS set up an account with a name like dragonflower and sat it on it for that long without using it? get real, the boy doesn't have that kind of control. if i'm not mistaken i was here prior to Heinze even showing up. and as Tim pointed out, there is at least one member of Soapbox 1.0 who has never made a post. there is one who has not been a member of CP for 6 months and several who have not been active, including two who have been accused of being trolls when they began to post. shouldn't everyone be bitching you aren't following the rules?
1. I have checked the stats on everyone who has applied for membership unless I knew from experience that they were active members. There are a couple who have been members for longer than six months but whose posting activities started less than six months ago. However, since they have posted in a number of forums and made a positive contribution in at least one programming forum, I let them in. You, on the other hand, have never made a post except to whine about my moderation of my forum, and never posted until Soap Box 1.0 was in existence. You remind me of Ilion telling Chris that he wasn't running CP correctly. 2. Being accused of being a troll does not make one a troll. e.g. both Tim and I have been accused of being a troll. Being identified as a troll who has been active for at least 6 months is a status that perhaps four people have achieved in the entire time I have been at CP. 3. Your opinion of whether I am following my rules is of no consequence. I suggest that you become an active member of CP, make a positive contribution to the place and check back in five and a half months. You may respond to this or not as you wish. However, I have explained my decision to you and you should not mistake me for someone interested in debating the issue.
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
-
1. I have checked the stats on everyone who has applied for membership unless I knew from experience that they were active members. There are a couple who have been members for longer than six months but whose posting activities started less than six months ago. However, since they have posted in a number of forums and made a positive contribution in at least one programming forum, I let them in. You, on the other hand, have never made a post except to whine about my moderation of my forum, and never posted until Soap Box 1.0 was in existence. You remind me of Ilion telling Chris that he wasn't running CP correctly. 2. Being accused of being a troll does not make one a troll. e.g. both Tim and I have been accused of being a troll. Being identified as a troll who has been active for at least 6 months is a status that perhaps four people have achieved in the entire time I have been at CP. 3. Your opinion of whether I am following my rules is of no consequence. I suggest that you become an active member of CP, make a positive contribution to the place and check back in five and a half months. You may respond to this or not as you wish. However, I have explained my decision to you and you should not mistake me for someone interested in debating the issue.
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
i'm not whining just merely stating fact...rules are rules which only seem to apply to those you chose they apply to. i had no interest in becoming an "active" member just wished to remain a "lurker" and continue to read and enjoy. i am not interested in debating either but wish to point out what a self righteous arrogant bastard you are and i was hoping to be there to see when somebody finally knocked you off of your high horse. oh wait, if i did that i might be mistaken for a troll, how horrible that might be...i won't get to be a member of Soapbox 1.0
-
i'm not whining just merely stating fact...rules are rules which only seem to apply to those you chose they apply to. i had no interest in becoming an "active" member just wished to remain a "lurker" and continue to read and enjoy. i am not interested in debating either but wish to point out what a self righteous arrogant bastard you are and i was hoping to be there to see when somebody finally knocked you off of your high horse. oh wait, if i did that i might be mistaken for a troll, how horrible that might be...i won't get to be a member of Soapbox 1.0
dragonflower wrote:
i am not interested in debating either but wish to point out what a self righteous arrogant bastard you are and i was hoping to be there to see when somebody finally knocked you off of your high horse
Ok... I just gotta say it. You're really bad at this. I mean, all you really had to do was prove Oakman wrong...
-
Tim Craig wrote:
But the point is that there are people there who don't meet the "stated" criteria and she was refused entrance and has never been a troll.
"She" is simply one of CSS's other personas, Tim. Nor has 'she' been an active member of CP for the last six months. 'She' has made exactly 5 posts, the oldest of which was made on the 16th of June, 2009. If I approved her membership, then you'd have the right to bitch that I wasn't following the rules.
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
modified on Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:22 AM
Oakman wrote:
"She" is simply one of CSS's other personas, Tim.
Actually, Jon, "she" is not. I happen to know her and while she hasn't posted, she does does enjoy the bickering in the SB.
Oakman wrote:
Nor has 'she' been an active member of CP for the last six months. 'She' has made exactly 5 posts, the oldest of which was made on the 16th of June, 2009.
C Paterson[^] has exactly 0 posts. Terribly active fellow.] And Catzarecute[^] has exactly 3 posts, all on one day.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
dragonflower wrote:
i am not interested in debating either but wish to point out what a self righteous arrogant bastard you are and i was hoping to be there to see when somebody finally knocked you off of your high horse
Ok... I just gotta say it. You're really bad at this. I mean, all you really had to do was prove Oakman wrong...
-
Shog9 wrote:
Ok... I just gotta say it. You're really bad at this. I mean, all you really had to do was prove Oakman wrong...
The count continues
Mind you don't run out of fingers.
-
dragonflower wrote:
i am not interested in debating either but wish to point out what a self righteous arrogant bastard you are and i was hoping to be there to see when somebody finally knocked you off of your high horse
Ok... I just gotta say it. You're really bad at this. I mean, all you really had to do was prove Oakman wrong...
Shog9 wrote:
Ok... I just gotta say it. You're really bad at this. I mean, all you really had to do was prove Oakman wrong...
no i think you mean, i had to prove TO Oakman he was wrong, do you think that is possible?
-
Oakman wrote:
"She" is simply one of CSS's other personas, Tim.
Actually, Jon, "she" is not. I happen to know her and while she hasn't posted, she does does enjoy the bickering in the SB.
Oakman wrote:
Nor has 'she' been an active member of CP for the last six months. 'She' has made exactly 5 posts, the oldest of which was made on the 16th of June, 2009.
C Paterson[^] has exactly 0 posts. Terribly active fellow.] And Catzarecute[^] has exactly 3 posts, all on one day.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
Actually, Jon, "she" is not.
Reason? Fairness? An attempt at objectivity?
Tim Craig wrote:
Actually, Jon, "she" is not. I happen to know her and while she hasn't posted, she does does enjoy the bickering in the SB.
Ah!
Tim Craig wrote:
... and while she hasn't posted, she does does enjoy the bickering in the SB.
She did say as much the other day.
-
Shog9 wrote:
Ok... I just gotta say it. You're really bad at this. I mean, all you really had to do was prove Oakman wrong...
no i think you mean, i had to prove TO Oakman he was wrong, do you think that is possible?
dragonflower wrote:
no i think you mean, i had to prove TO Oakman he was wrong, do you think that is possible?
No, that's not what i meant, and yes, i do. Ilion's bellyaching aside, the new forum has been working out pretty well. Time will tell if that holds long-term. You have multiple people arguing in your favor right now, and near as i can tell the best arguments for disallowing you are coming from... you. Ultimately, the responsibility for demonstrating you have something to contribute is on you. So... Do that. If you think Oakman is being unfair, then don't bother arguing with him, let your words and actions demonstrate it to everyone else.
-
dragonflower wrote:
i am not interested in debating either but wish to point out what a self righteous arrogant bastard you are and i was hoping to be there to see when somebody finally knocked you off of your high horse
Ok... I just gotta say it. You're really bad at this. I mean, all you really had to do was prove Oakman wrong...
Shog9 wrote:
Ok... I just gotta say it. You're really bad at this.
She said exactly what needed to be said.
Obloga Obama Blog[^] Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age to produce the sort of character and sort of beliefs that authorities consider desirable. Any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.
-
dragonflower wrote:
no i think you mean, i had to prove TO Oakman he was wrong, do you think that is possible?
No, that's not what i meant, and yes, i do. Ilion's bellyaching aside, the new forum has been working out pretty well. Time will tell if that holds long-term. You have multiple people arguing in your favor right now, and near as i can tell the best arguments for disallowing you are coming from... you. Ultimately, the responsibility for demonstrating you have something to contribute is on you. So... Do that. If you think Oakman is being unfair, then don't bother arguing with him, let your words and actions demonstrate it to everyone else.
Don't be ridiculous, Oakmdick's little private group is nothing to strive for and I expect it to dissolve soon.
Obloga Obama Blog[^] Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age to produce the sort of character and sort of beliefs that authorities consider desirable. Any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.
-
Oakman wrote:
"She" is simply one of CSS's other personas, Tim.
Actually, Jon, "she" is not. I happen to know her and while she hasn't posted, she does does enjoy the bickering in the SB.
Oakman wrote:
Nor has 'she' been an active member of CP for the last six months. 'She' has made exactly 5 posts, the oldest of which was made on the 16th of June, 2009.
C Paterson[^] has exactly 0 posts. Terribly active fellow.] And Catzarecute[^] has exactly 3 posts, all on one day.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!And both have been suspended. let me know if you spot anyone else that I slipped up on.
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
modified on Saturday, June 20, 2009 4:30 PM
-
And both have been suspended. let me know if you spot anyone else that I slipped up on.
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
modified on Saturday, June 20, 2009 4:30 PM
Oakman wrote:
let me know if you spot anyone else that I slipped up on.
Yeah, you might have admitted being wrong about labeling her as CSS and how careful you were in checking profiles on membership.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Oakman wrote:
let me know if you spot anyone else that I slipped up on.
Yeah, you might have admitted being wrong about labeling her as CSS and how careful you were in checking profiles on membership.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
Yeah, you might have admitted being wrong about labeling her as CSS and how careful you were in checking profiles on membership.
I freely admit the second. During the first couple of days of accepting members, there were lists of 10 or 12, three times @ day, and I was new to the process. (Some people told me they were accepted two or three times as I worked it out.) You could have simply told me that I'd goofed in an email or even its own thread, but nonetheless I appreciate you catching the errors. If you say, you know her, I take you at your word - but that simply means that I read vulgarities like 'I can show you my tits," wrong - not that she qualifies for Soapbox.
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Yeah, you might have admitted being wrong about labeling her as CSS and how careful you were in checking profiles on membership.
I freely admit the second. During the first couple of days of accepting members, there were lists of 10 or 12, three times @ day, and I was new to the process. (Some people told me they were accepted two or three times as I worked it out.) You could have simply told me that I'd goofed in an email or even its own thread, but nonetheless I appreciate you catching the errors. If you say, you know her, I take you at your word - but that simply means that I read vulgarities like 'I can show you my tits," wrong - not that she qualifies for Soapbox.
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
Oakman wrote:
but that simply means that I read vulgarities like 'I can show you my tits," wrong
What do you expect someone to say when you accuse them of being CSS? Thank you for the compliment?
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
dragonflower wrote:
no i think you mean, i had to prove TO Oakman he was wrong, do you think that is possible?
No, that's not what i meant, and yes, i do. Ilion's bellyaching aside, the new forum has been working out pretty well. Time will tell if that holds long-term. You have multiple people arguing in your favor right now, and near as i can tell the best arguments for disallowing you are coming from... you. Ultimately, the responsibility for demonstrating you have something to contribute is on you. So... Do that. If you think Oakman is being unfair, then don't bother arguing with him, let your words and actions demonstrate it to everyone else.
thank you for the input. i really do appreciate it. i'm not going to try and prove to oakman i am worthy of his approval, its obvious i'll never get it. it all comes down to him having the sole approval over membership and i'm a vulgar troll. i'll continue to enjoy the site as in the past and maybe even make a post or two.
-
Oakman wrote:
but that simply means that I read vulgarities like 'I can show you my tits," wrong
What do you expect someone to say when you accuse them of being CSS? Thank you for the compliment?
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
What do you expect someone to say when you accuse them of being CSS? Thank you for the compliment?
Well, at the time she made the offer I hadn't accused her of anything. Someone else had, but your friend had a fight to pick with me so her remarks were all directed at me. It was, indeed, her vulgarity that convinced me that the accusation had merit.
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
-
Tim Craig wrote:
What do you expect someone to say when you accuse them of being CSS? Thank you for the compliment?
Well, at the time she made the offer I hadn't accused her of anything. Someone else had, but your friend had a fight to pick with me so her remarks were all directed at me. It was, indeed, her vulgarity that convinced me that the accusation had merit.
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
Oakman wrote:
Well, at the time she made the offer I hadn't accused her of anything.
http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3083359/Re-Its-all-gone-quiet.aspx[^] gee i wonder how i could have ever thought you were implying anything. and for the record, i would have never shown you my tits...that was a joke!
-
Oakman wrote:
Well, at the time she made the offer I hadn't accused her of anything.
http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3083359/Re-Its-all-gone-quiet.aspx[^] gee i wonder how i could have ever thought you were implying anything. and for the record, i would have never shown you my tits...that was a joke!
-
What I'm confused about is why you chose confrontation as a means to correct the situation, when politeness and grace would have carried you much further.
This statement is false
it started as a lite hearted attempt on my part to express i wanted to be a member of Soapbox 1.0. it quickly went south when i realized i was not even going to be given a chance. Oakman pegged me as CSS and in his mind there was no possibility i could be anybody else. i saw others being allowed membership that didn't meet the qualifications (and there are still a few). not one of my posts received any kind of reply from Oakman until it was pointed out by a trusted source i was not CSS and then his reply wasn't exactly a friendly i'm sorry but..... i actually think he is disappointed i'm not CSS and he was wrong.