[FairfieldLife] Re: Don't talk about me when I'm gone
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Isn't it fascinating that the only request for censorship we've heard on FFL (forbidding any commentary about posters who go over the posting limit) comes from one of the small handful of people who have most gone over the posting limit, and after one day is already halfway to doing so again this week? What's next on the censorship agenda, banning comments about poor math skills, lack of self control, and obsession? :-) What I find even funnier is to hear this cry for censor- ship being called for out of fairness. 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? Hm. 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Don't talk about me when I'm gone
--- 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? Hm. 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Don't talk about me when I'm gone
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? Hm. 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Don't talk about me when I'm gone
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: 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.:-) No kidding. This post is so revealing of what a crummy human being he is. Not to mention how illogical his thinking is. He accuses me of advocating censorship, then proceeds to advocate it himself, as in what you quote above: it's perfectly fine to demonize people, even lie about them, but it's not OK for them to respond. The free speech zone Barry waxes so eloquent about when it comes to his right to demonize and lie about the people he doesn't like goes rapidly out the window when it comes to their right to respond. And note that it's censorship, in his mind, to ask folks to delay their impulse to demonize for a week. That impulse must be allowed to be indulged *immediately*; it can't wait until the banned overposter is back. What does that say about the self-control of the demonizers? Is that supposed to be a sign of strength? FWIW, I've participated in a number of moderated groups in which no public comment on a moderation was permitted, at the time *or* later. I've never seen *anybody* scream that it was censorship. They'd have been laughed off the forum if they had. The LEARN TO FUCKIN' COUNT, like the rest of us command is also pretty funny. The rest of us don't typically get so close to 50 posts that they even *need* to count. If they did, most of them would go over occasionally too; nobody's as obsessive as Barry about keeping track. And as I said before, the idea that once in a while accidentally going over by one or two posts somehow destroys what the posting limits were designed to control is simply ludicrous; there's no need to be obsessive about it. If someone is overposting repeatedly and deliberately, that's a different story. But that's obviously not happening. The reason *Barry* is so obsessive about the posting limits, and why he agitated for them in the first place, is that it gives him yet another *excuse* to demonize the folks he doesn't like and lie about them without fear of rebuttal (as he does about Robin below). Yup, he sure is 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Don't talk about me when I'm gone
What's fascinating is Barry's inability to comment honestly and accurately on anything that takes place on FFL, the post below being a splendid example. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Isn't it fascinating that the only request for censorship we've heard on FFL (forbidding any commentary about posters who go over the posting limit) comes from one of the small handful of people who have most gone over the posting limit, and after one day is already halfway to doing so again this week? What's next on the censorship agenda, banning comments about poor math skills, lack of self control, and obsession? :-)
