|
user etiquette
|
Posted By:
probably everybody
Mar 19, 2005
|
There is a user at this site who apparently lurks with the hopes of starting
fights having no bearing on the subject at hand. This user goads people into
responding so he can consistently accuse people of ignoring fictitious
requests he has made of them. When they do take the time and effort and to
respond, rather than comprehending the new information he simply repeats the
charade. Nothing new to internet bulletin boards, but normally these users
are warned, then banned. A policy that would certainly make this hoax board
more viable.
How about thread asking if anyone knows who I'm talking about and/or agrees?
|
Comments
The Curator
in San Diego
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 12:53 PM
I have no idea who you're talking about, but I do already have a policy stating that people can't be abusive or threatening. Plus, they can't spam.
In addition, if people are posting endless off-topic garbage then I will ban them. For instance, I've banned some high school kids who seemed intent on turning the forum into their personal chat room.
However, someone who isn't responding to your comments as succinctly as you'd like doesn't sound to me like a bannable offense. If someone is annoying you, my advice would be to ignore them. |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 01:13 PM
Ha! Not like all I'm asking is for people to defend their position...
Oh, yeah, that's all I do ask. (except when I'm just being a smartass, and then I don't usually get into a long conversation about a stupid quip)
Simply because someone repeatedly doesn't answer the questions put forth and cannot prove what they assert does not make them right, and does not give them the right to expect people to band together and help make someone else an outcast simply because they disagree.
But hey, they are free to do whatever they want, just like everyone else.
The thread in reference here is the Shroud of Turin one, I'm pretty sure, and I know the person referenced is me. If you want to read what this guy's talking about, start <a href="http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/shroud_of_turin_mystery_solved/P0/">HERE</a>.
Then please come and post your opinion here, I would like to see if I'm the only one who thinks this guy is avoiding answering.
I would also like an opinion as to whether or not you think I'm just being a dick. |
Evildream
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 02:44 PM
um...
was i baned...
oh and this fourm seems to be an oxymoron. |
Electra
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 04:05 PM
Some clarity - I hope. Chrisopher Cole wrote 'user ettiquette', & is reffering to Rod. They got into a really long, drawn out argument over the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. See, C.C. is a Low-Church Episcopalian, apparently, and wants to believe the shroud is authentically Jesus Christ Brand, Made in the Holyland. Rod, a self-professed athesist, questioned 4 points that C.C. asserted in a really long-rambling-obscure post referencing an apparently long-rambling- obscure book on the shroud. Rod insisted on asking the same 4 questions over-and-over-and-over again yet C.C. never answered them sufficiently. So, C.C., posting anonymously, came over here, and is asking for support in banning Rod.
NO this is not grounds to ban Rod. And NO, instating a policy based on C.C.'s logic will NOT make MOH more viable. I also agree w/Alex.
1. "...someone who isn't responding to your comments as succinctly as you'd like doesn't sound to me like a bannable offense."
Funny that Alex was giving this advice to C.C. who is the least succinct poster on MOH! If lack of succinctness was a crime here, I would've been banned a long time ago myself! But C.C., goes on & on, breaking 1 post into 3 or 4 separate and hard-to-follow submissions, in case no one has noticed that.
2. "If someone is annoying you, my advice would be to ignore them."
Yeah. C.C. got upset at me once (for calling myself a liberal and for lambasting BACK at rascist hate speech.) I retracted the objectionable word ("liberal"), attempted to clarify my postiton, and ask that he please leave my name out of his posts since I felt I had carefully explained myself and my comments. I then dropped the issue.
**********************************************
The preceeding program has been "The Passion of The Christ-like Shroud"
A new English-language telenovela airing on The Hoax Network.
Sponsored by "Jesus Smelling Candles"
(Something smell fishy? Make it smell heavenly!) and "Virgin Mary Potato Chips"
(Virginity Reclaimed!...You are what you eat!)
Will Chrisopher and Rod, the two tenacious rivals, decide to join forces and become one unbeatable powerhouse of passion?
Stay tuned for the next endless installment! |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 04:29 PM
Thank you, Electra.
And thank you, also, for the "commercial" blurb at the end. Totally hilarious.
Somehow I don't think that there will be a next installment from him in the shroud thread, but who knows? We'll probably disagree again, if he sticks around here, like the religious and the atheistic always do. All my whole rigamarole with him was supposed to accomplish was this... Christopher's realization that if he can't prove his theory in any way shape or form, maybe he should question it.
Has anyone got any ideas on what to call the sequel?
😏 |
Myst
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 04:37 PM
AS the shroud turns?
:cheese: |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 04:44 PM
No, we were saving "ATST" for the upcoming mini-series.
😊 |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 05:03 PM
But if the miniseries gets scrapped, we'll give you full credit if we use it for the next movie. |
Electra
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 05:45 PM
Way off the topic, but since you asked....
How about:
1. "The Passion of Rod and Chris"
('A sexy story shrouded in mystery!')
2. "Dark Shadows (on a shroud)"
3. "The Shrouds of Our Lives"
4. "The Old and the Useless (shroud)"
I love making fake shroud-inpired soap opera names for some reason! |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 05:58 PM
How can it be off topic? In case you didn't notice, the topic, apparently, is ME.
😛
Does this count as my 15 minutes? |
Myst
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 05:59 PM
Thanks, Rod.
Electra, you are having too much fun. LOL |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 06:00 PM
And I love how the guy posted under the name "probably everybody".
How's THAT for standing behind your assertions? Not even using your name? |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 06:02 PM
And hands up who doesn't agree with him? |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 06:50 PM
Okay, this title's pretty inflammatory, but hey, what are ya gonna do...
"The Pissin Of The Chris"
😊 |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 | 06:54 PM
So, is "probably everybody" ever gonna try and defend himself, of what?
I don't think it's too fair of him that he makes one statement, and when he finds out that people don't agree with him, he just doesn't respond.
After all, this WAS a personal attack on ME, I kind of feel justified in asking why he's not here... |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 | 07:10 PM
Maybe "probably everybody" doesn't have anything intelligent to say? |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 | 07:16 PM
MAYBE? ❓ |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 | 10:30 AM
...Whatever happened to just ignoring people that bug you?? |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 | 01:29 PM
Unfortunately, to some, whining seems more fun than ignoring ....
You just know the guy would sue me for SOMETHING if he could... |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 | 06:14 PM
Sorry I missed this one when it was current!
:down: |
tpinch
|
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 | 12:08 PM
If you look at the shroud from head to toe, the truth shows how fake it is. You can test the cloth, chemicals all you want, but the image shows the truth.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments
So why should Jesus leave an image and defy His father's commandment. |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
