Jolt Country

pinback wrote:what

I thought you were one of the forum moderators because you said you fixed those problems I created on the Crazy Doodles post?

I understood that part, but none of the other words you mashed into the keyboard.

pinback wrote:I understood that part, but none of the other words you mashed into the keyboard.

He was offering a monetary incentive in exchange for you deleting this entire topic from the forum.

This is so that the shame he feels in real life is solely based on his lack of personal accomplishments, and not from an acute case of keyboard autism.

The words that he chose indicate to me that he does not expect this to happen, despite wanting it very much, and that he is also functionally illiterate.

Additionally, and I can't be certain, the envelope full of cash is probably a euphemism for something very lewd.

I would like to point out that only being right 75% of the time is why he hasn't made full admiral yet.

This is the difference between me and ICJ. He's a "quantity" guy. More posters! More threads! More customers! Whereas me, I'm an "everything the new guy posts is terrible so I will run him off because Jonsey has no clue how to run a successful BBS" guy.

See the difference?

pinback wrote:This is the difference between me and ICJ. He's a "quantity" guy. More posters! More threads! More customers! Whereas me, I'm an "everything the new guy posts is terrible so I will run him off because Jonsey has no clue how to run a successful BBS" guy.

See the difference?

The difference is pretty obvious, the part that confuses me is why?

Quantity, Customers? He doesn't run ads, have a donate button, links to amazon, have a premium member service, a merchandise store. The only way I could see this as any form of benefit to him is if he is compiling all of the posts, and selling them to a marketing firm, or if he is currently mining my PC for bitcoin? Even that would be limiting considering the niche audience this forum caters to.

And while you in all honestly seem like a competent mod, if you see your job as chasing away new members, which is contrary to Robb's wishes, why would he select you to be a mod?

It is all very confusing.

I'm not a "mod". The only time I've ever had to be a "mod" was deleting and modifying your terrible, screen-ruining shit in Aardvark's doodle thread.

Oh, and banning all political discussion and everyone who participates in them.

Those two things, which, not to put too fine a point on it, are both the fault of you, Billy Mays, the worst new poster to befoul this wretched online landscape since me.

"I'm not a "mod"

hammered. Just ignore this...

pinback wrote:I'm not a "mod"...Oh, and banning all political discussion and everyone who participates in them.

So if you are not a mod, is the political topic really banned, or was that just a ploy of yours for people to attack me without having the ability to defend myself?

RealNC wrote:Islam is just the strongest pawn in the war. It's not the cause.

I feel the need to point out how ironic this statement is within your argument.

Pawns become exponentially more dangerous/powerful the closer they are to your position. The pawn poses no immediate threat on their side of the board until you move one of your pieces within there area of control. It is not until pawns advance onto your side of the board that they go from being mostly harmless pieces on their starting squares, to becoming a monster pawn, jeopardizing your safety, disrupting your position, capturing your pieces, and even toppling your king.

While it is always prudent to focus on your opponent's intentions, many masters have been defeated due to failing to recognize in time the threat of a single pawn.

Also, it is not common for pawns to commit acts taharosh or jihad, this is also important to point out.

Billy Mays wrote:

pinback wrote:I'm not a "mod"...Oh, and banning all political discussion and everyone who participates in them.

So if you are not a mod, is the political topic really banned, or was that just a ploy of yours for people to attack me without having the ability to defend myself?

Ploy? Oh, it was much more than a ploy. It was a meticulously designed subterfuge that I have been planning for over a decade. And you played your part perfectly, nesciently tangling yourself in the web that I spun as I was lying in wait, for you, since before I can remember.

Ploy? Hah. No.

This was my masterpiece.

pinback wrote:

Billy Mays wrote:

pinback wrote:I'm not a "mod"...Oh, and banning all political discussion and everyone who participates in them.

So if you are not a mod, is the political topic really banned, or was that just a ploy of yours for people to attack me without having the ability to defend myself?

Ploy? Oh, it was much more than a ploy. It was a meticulously designed subterfuge that I have been planning for over a decade. And you played your part perfectly, nesciently tangling yourself in the web that I spun as I was lying in wait, for you, since before I can remember.

Ploy? Hah. No.

This was my masterpiece.

I still don't see how any of this prevents me from purchasing a copy of Cyberganked at whatever the full retail price that Robb decides to sell it at, which is the only reason I am even on this board, so that I can receive updates on a highly anticipated game when all other methods of communicating with his fan base are shaky at best?

Also, I am growing very fond of AArdvark's sketches.

You are banned from purchasing Cyberganked, and enjoying Aardvark's doodles.

Billy Mays wrote:

RealNC wrote:Racism is a term that is also commonly used for religious discrimination.

Only by those who don't understand the meaning of the words race and racism.

Pinback has used a recording of a guy called "The Bridgetender" on his show, and tricked me into thinking it was someone actually talking to me. One of the recorded lines he has from the Bridgetender is "You are absolutely correct, sir!"

And you have hit it on the head.

Billy Mays wrote:More often than not, throwing the term racism around is a tactic used by liberals who are unable to come to any sort of rational argument against what is said.

There were people saying criticizing Muslims was racist until people started pointing out that it's not a race! As The Sugarhill Gang sang in Rappers Delight, Muslims can consist of "the black to the white to the red to the brown, the purple and yellow."

Billy Mays wrote:I mention, in not the most diplomatic fashion, that something needs to be addressed about jihadism spreading throughout the western world. This is a statement of fact that breaks the utopian narrative that all cultures are identical and completely compatible with each other.

I think the West needs to stop pussy footing around and declare the truth: that Islam is not a religion, but a military order. The penalty for leaving Islam (apostasy) is death. That means that Muslims are treating the Islamic faith not as a religious order but as a military, since they are equating abandoning the religion the same as a soldier abandoning their post. Thus until it abandons its military aspects it is not entitled to religious treatment.

If, like myself, you give up on Christianity and become an atheist, or you convert to some other religion, nobody is going to care, but under the provisions of the Koran that practice by a Muslim mandates a death sentence.

Billy Mays wrote:They are unable to argue against this due to turning on the news and seeing Muslims slaughtering large groups of people in the name of Islam. This makes them feel bad because they are not able to refute this argument, so they throw racist at the person because it used to be an atomic bomb word that won all arguments.

The new word is "Islamophobic," as if that is supposed to sound all bad or something. It is not wrong to find offensive a religion that considers if you engage in a form of consensual sexuality that the people who operate it disagree with, they have the right to behead you. Or that the appropriate action if a woman is raped is either to force her to marry him so he can continue to rape her or have her stoned to death for adultery, while he gets away with it.

This sort of insanity deserves maximum opposition and condemnation, and those who disagree with the opposing of cold blooded murder of gays because they don't like their practices or the torture murder of rape victims, or think that we should not be harshly critical of these practices, are enablers of evil who deserve even worse scorn and ridicule.

Billy Mays wrote:You guys can deny reality all that you like, you can listen to your feelings, and wish really hard that we are not at war with Islam, this however does not make it true. How many more thousands of westerners are you willing to get slaughtered or raped before you admit we have a problem here?

I am aware that there is a problem. And something should be done as long as it is not excessive nor worse than the problem.

About ten years ago on one of the Objectivist newsgroups on Usenet I was arguing with some people who thought that "the answer" was to preemptively use nuclear weapons against countries they thought were unacceptable because of their support of Islam and might attack us. My response was basically, "are you out of your fucking mind!?" That sort of concept is ridiculous, because if you can argue we should commit offensive use of nuclear weapons because they might be a threat to us, would give them a valid reason to attack us on the grounds that we were planning to nuke them.

That way leads to madness.

Pagan/Unitarian universalist here... Jesus, probably existed, but the idea of self sacrifice, and the selected gospels a part of the bible = constructed to control the masses

loafergirl wrote:but the idea of self sacrifice, and the selected gospels a part of the bible = constructed to control the masses

You don't need any of that to "control the masses".

What controls the masses in modern society is sports, diabetes, and the fear of men with machine guns and zip ties kicking down your front door.

What controlled the masses in earlier eras was sports, starving to death, and the fear of men with swords and flamboyant helmets walking in through your front door.

Billy Mays wrote:What controlled the masses in earlier eras was sports, starving to death, and the fear of men with swords and flamboyant helmets walking in through your front door.

My understanding was, in ancient Rome, that was the difference between a citizen and a slave. A citizen could afford to buy a sword and a shield.

It's like the arguments for Gun Control. The real reason it got passed was so that black people would not be armed. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney stated in the Dred Scott Decision that one of the reasons black people could never stop being a slave because if they weren't, under the Second Amendment they'd have the right to keep and bear arms.

This is probably one of the reasons Wyoming gave women the right to vote long before anywhere else did. You were unlikely to live very long as an election official when you told some woman standing in front of you at the polling place, wearing two six guns on her hips same as any guy, that she couldn't vote.

Tdarcos wrote:My understanding was, in ancient Rome, that was the difference between a citizen and a slave. A citizen could afford to buy a sword and a shield.

I am note really sure about Rome.

I don't think slaves were ever allowed to own their own weapons anywhere in history? Used them in sporting events, sure, but own them? They would have to be a very high status slave/gladiator, maybe then?

I know to serve in the Roman legion, you had to be a citizen, which means to had to own your own land, and the they had to be able to buy there own weapons and equipment.

Which weapon you were allowed to carry was largely based on your social class for much of the last 2000 years or more. In much of medieval Europe, only nobility were allowed to carry swords, while even the lowliest peasant could carry a messer which is essentially a sword where the handle is attached a little differently.