"> 1. LEARN TO FUCKIN' COUNT, like the rest of us. > > 2. STOP BEING LED AROUND BY YOUR EGO-DICK. You > don't "need" to respond to everyone who describes you > differently than you'd like to be described. To do so > is a sign of weakness, not strength. Grow the fuck up. > > 3. IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, SUCK IT UP WHEN > THE REST OF US LAUGH AT YOU LIKE THE DORKS > YOU ARE."
Like I said, what a charmer.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > What I find even funnier is to hear this cry for censor- > > ship being called for out of "fairness." > > Barry couldn't run his various numbers and prop up his > self-image if he had to be fair. For him, fairness > *would* be "censorship." He genuinely can't tell the > difference. > > Again, this post is a superb example of Barry's utter > unwillingness to be fair, as well as his inability, as > I said before, to comment honestly and accurately on > anything that takes place on FFL. > > The weirdest part of this is that *he doesn't realize > how transparent his motivations are* to everybody but > him. ZERO self-knowledge. > > > > > The way some people think, being "fair" means watching > > someone get their buttons pushed by someone else here, > > lose all sense of self control (and even the ability > > to count), and get so bent behind the need to attack > > another poster or defend themselves that they go over > > the posting limit and get banned for a week. > > > > Then, according to the censors, what the rest of us -- > > who *didn't* do this stuff, and are still well within > > our limit of posts for the week -- are supposed to do > > to be "fair" to these idiots is to sit there in silence > > and not say a word about their childish behavior. It > > would be "unfair" to do so because they are around to > > respond or defend themselves. > > > > WTF? "Responding and defending themselves" is what got > > their asses banned for a week in the first place. They > > couldn't control themselves. I think it's in their > > *interest* to have people laugh at them and poke a little > > fun at how easily they get their buttons pushed, because > > then they might actually learn a little something and be > > less likely to do it in the future. :-) > > > > I'd say this is doubly true if the person who has been > > consigned to the posted out bench claims to be enlightened. > > WTF? I mean, you're claiming to be enlightened and you > > can't even count well enough and be in control of your > > emotions enough to keep from making more than 50 posts > > a week? Get real. You DESERVE to have people laugh at > > you and poke fun at you while you're "away." > > > > Bottom line is that there are only a handful of people > > who have EVER gone over the posting limit since it's been > > established. Interestingly, most of that handful consists > > of the group I've been calling Gladys Knight and the Pips, > > and most of *them* have gone over the limit and gotten > > banned for a week multiple times. > > > > And yet WHO is saying it's "not fair" for the rest of us > > to be able to comment on posters who get stupid over and > > over again and go over the limit over and over again? > > Hmmmmmmmmm. Makes you think that the cry for censorship > > isn't about being "fair" but a preemptive attempt to get > > other posters to stop making comments about *them* when > > *they* go over the posting limit again, doesn't it? > > > > I know a simpler, three-step solution: > > > > 1. LEARN TO FUCKIN' COUNT, like the rest of us. > > > > 2. STOP BEING LED AROUND BY YOUR EGO-DICK. You > > don't "need" to respond to everyone who describes you > > differently than you'd like to be described. To do so > > is a sign of weakness, not strength. Grow the fuck up. > > > > 3. IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, SUCK IT UP WHEN > > THE REST OF US LAUGH AT YOU LIKE THE DORKS > > YOU ARE. >
