• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Moderators

Page 40 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Yes - I said I don't remember many of their names - it doesn't mean I don't remember many posters getting permanently banned.

I have no problem standing by what I said.
But you can't substantiate your claim, correct? I think we're all clear on that.
 
Aug 9, 2009
624
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Its not a threat, its an observation and its pretty easy to make.
ChrisE is right back to doing what they do and thats why they got banned before.
Bolded parts are quite interesting. Who are "they"?
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,592
0
0
I get what you are saying, and would argue the same points, if I was making those points. I am not.

Sure, there is a lot to be said about obscenity, how it changes over time, how people have different private standards, yadayada, and congrats on being ahead of the curve. So I am I, I suspect, but all that misses the point completely: you were well out of line.

When the site tells you that a certain type of pictures aren't welcome here, and the word obscene is used, or otherwise jarring, or whatever the broadening phrase was, I guarantee you that those you picked were intended too. That the site wasn't leaving it up to you to decide what you feel is obscene, and what is funny. Certain content is unwelcome. Period.

I am not ruling based on what I think or feel about your post, so arguing that angle is useless, as I haven't even stated what I think is obscene to begin with, or what I consider your post to be, to me personally.

Reality is that 'what is obscene' is that what is perceived to be obscene in general, rightly or wrongly. It is not a set and defined thing ever, it is subjective in nature. What is 'in' is a call based upon the general consensus, and the median lies somewhere with what Joe Average judges it to be. It isn't about what should be seen as obscene, it is about what people, in general, or on average, believe is.

And if you want a long discussion about the meaning of the word obscene, google it first, see that there are multiple ways of defining it, listed pretty much everywhere, and certainly in the authoritative dictionaries. Your cherry-picked (narrow) interpretation, and mine (a broader one), the one you completely ignore but which is commonly listed alongside it.

I accept that yours can be one, you don't appear to accept that mine can be one too. And since I was using it and the word will have the meaning that I attribute to it, and is indeed covered by dictionary definitions, tata, that's the one we are talking about.

AGAIN:

It doesn't change that what you posted was inappropriate for the site, by the site's standards, and if that is a surprise, you haven't being paying attention. I called it obscene. You don't appear to accept that as the correct phrase. Fine.

It doesn't make your post less appropriate [or even less obscene by the general standards I referred to, but let's forget that].

I am done arguing about that it doesn't matter what you or I think is appropriate, it only matters what is deemed appropriate here by the site owners. Go and ask, please, as you won't accept my answer, it seems.

Actually, I will make you a deal:

You say that your post was appropriate for the site [i say it isn't - you say it is], and that obscene is nowhere defined the way I use it [i say it commonly is - you say it isn't].

I will go and get 'authoritative' proof for the latter, that dictionaries on the whole cover my intended meaning, and generously so. But only if you at the same time go and get proof for the first and only important objection you raised, by asking how acceptable it was from the only people have the authority that matters about 'appropriate' here, the site owners.

You have a head start, as you can google for it, and read the posting guidelines too, and I have to wait and see how welcome your private rule interpretation and actual choice of pictures actually will be. You can only come out as the innocent poster who was wrongly told to get a better grip of what is welcome here, and what isn't.

Deal?
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
I respect this type of answer. I actually believe you (which I am sure you could care less) when you say many of the Armstrong detractors were banned.

I honestly was not even questioning it. I was and I THINK YOU KNOW what I was doing......was trying to point out how you will jump all over anyone with ...."give me a link" or "show me some posts" requests if they try and go against the "logical consensus". That is the end of debate and all it becomes is a non stop "shaking each others hands" aka circle........Jer!!.....
Firstly - 'I don't jump all over anyone" looking for a link.

However if someone cites something and I feel they are talking out their rear or if I feel they are misrepresenting something then yes, I will request a link.

In the exact same way as anyone can request one from me, which is why no, I didn't spot that your intention was to point that out.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Cal_Joe said:
Bolded parts are quite interesting. Who are "they"?
I refer to most people in the forum as they - as I don't know their sex.

They:
(used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she ): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Firstly - 'I don't jump all over anyone" looking for a link.

However if someone cites something and I feel they are talking out their rear or if I feel they are misrepresenting something then yes, I will request a link.

In the exact same way as anyone can request one from me, which is why no, I didn't spot that your intention was to point that out.
Well then my apologies Dr.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
patricknd said:
But you can't substantiate your claim, correct? I think we're all clear on that.
I have given numerous examples already - so that substantiates my claim.
So, you're incorrect - glad to clear that up.

And to add to the list Whiteboytrash (and they were almost TFF in their loathing of LA)

Glenn_Wilson said:
Well then my apologies Dr.
No need at all to apologize - you asked a valid question and I hope I gave you a valid answer, I don't believe I am that hard to figure out.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Francois the Postman said:
I get what you are saying, and would argue the same points, if I was making those points. I am not.

Sure, there is a lot to be said about obscenity, how it changes over time, how people have different private standards, yadayada, and congrats on being ahead of the curve. So I am I, I suspect, but all that misses the point completely: you were well out of line.

When the site tells you that a certain type of pictures aren't welcome here, and the word obscene is used, or otherwise jarring, or whatever the broadening phrase was, I guarantee you that those you picked were intended too. That the site wasn't leaving it up to you to decide what you feel is obscene, and what is funny. Certain content is unwelcome. Period.

I am not ruling based on what I think or feel about your post, so arguing that angle is useless, as I haven't even stated what I think is obscene to begin with, or what I consider your post to be, to me personally.

Reality is that 'what is obscene' is that what is perceived to be obscene in general, rightly or wrongly. It is not a set and defined thing ever, it is subjective in nature. What is 'in' is a call based upon the general consensus, and the median lies somewhere with what Joe Average judges it to be. It isn't about what should be seen as obscene, it is about what people, in general, or on average, believe is.

And if you want a long discussion about the meaning of the word obscene, google it first, see that there are multiple ways of defining it, listed pretty much everywhere, and certainly in the authoritative dictionaries. Your cherry-picked (narrow) interpretation, and mine (a broader one), the one you completely ignore but which is commonly listed alongside it.

I accept that yours can be one, you don't appear to accept that mine can be one too. And since I was using it and the word will have the meaning that I attribute to it, and is indeed covered by dictionary definitions, tata, that's the one we are talking about.

AGAIN:

It doesn't change that what you posted was inappropriate for the site, by the site's standards, and if that is a surprise, you haven't being paying attention. I called it obscene. You don't appear to accept that as the correct phrase. Fine.

It doesn't make your post less appropriate [or even less obscene by the general standards I referred to, but let's forget that].

I am done arguing about that it doesn't matter what you or I think is appropriate, it only matters what is deemed appropriate here by the site owners. Go and ask, please, as you won't accept my answer, it seems.

Actually, I will make you a deal:

You say that your post was appropriate for the site [i say it isn't - you say it is], and that obscene is nowhere defined the way I use it [i say it commonly is - you say it isn't].

I will go and get 'authoritative' proof for the latter, that dictionaries on the whole cover my intended meaning, and generously so. But only if you at the same time go and get proof for the first and only important objection you raised, by asking how acceptable it was from the only people have the authority that matters about 'appropriate' here, the site owners.

You have a head start, as you can google for it, and read the posting guidelines too, and I have to wait and see how welcome your private rule interpretation and actual choice of pictures actually will be. You can only come out as the innocent poster who was wrongly told to get a better grip of what is welcome here, and what isn't.

Deal?
I don't think you get it. I refuse any colloquial or extended definition that includes acts of animals in any form (if you can find one). Period. I don't care what you bring up from any definition anywhere, it does not apply because animals do not have the cognitive ability to create obscene anything. It is an impossibility. Extend any definition you want, and I will tell you again and again why it is incorrect.

As to the owners of this site, if they found it obscene, they are wrong too. If they found it offensive, good, I meant it to be offensive. Their usage of skimwords is offensive and obscene because they have the cognitive ability to create obscene and offensive actions. I still submit that their unannounced usage of skimwords fits both descriptions.

And I flat out don't believe I deserved a ban for that. It was social commentary that exceeded bounds determined by you because I don't believe for one second that anyone but you decided to ban me initially because I saw the time stamps. I think your decision was wrong, and all of the inviting me to ask what someone else thinks about it is useless because I don't care.

Clear?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal_Joe said:
Before this idiocy proceeds any further, a few facts. For those of you who did not see it, the post that resulted in the most recent TFF banning had a hyperlink labeled "CN Staff" - that link was to a picture of a chimpanzee involved in an act of sexual self gratification.

Was that a a violation of the forum posting rules? I'll let you decide.

Was that a deliberate poke in the eye to CN staff? I'll let you decide.

The ban, according to the official post was "for confusing criticism and/or being funny with breaking several rules and general indecency."

First year law students can probably write several hundred pages on definitions of obscenity as decided over the last few decades by courts, all of which do not appear to have anything to do with the banning.

Some students would be better served by addressing their ban in terms of the forum rules rather than their personal philosophy regarding sexed up chimps and their personal definition of obscenity.
AussieGoddess said:
Seriously? and TFF You are arguing that that kind of post DOESNT deserve a ban ????? :confused:

Even if you dont think its obscene .... its certainly offensive and rude

At the end of the day, the mods moderate ATTITUDE. If you post politely, rationally and address the actual issue ... your post is likely to stay. If you are rude, nasty, insulting or offensive - its likely to be deleted. If you consistantly post rude, nasty insulting or offensive, or consistently off topic, you are likely to get a forced vacation. Its not rocket science ....

I just dont understand the constant whinge about this stuff. I moderate a forum made up primarily of women and dont get this amount of whininess from them ..... :eek:
Cal_Joe said:
Yes, seriously. Kind of surprised that TFF didn't volunteer that info. :rolleyes:
Actually, I refereed to it earlier today. You can go back and see the "edited by mod" if you'd like. It spelled out the act you mention. Susan moderated it because even the description is "obscene" I guess? So I suggest that you go read the forum rules Pot Shot because according to you, you just broke them.

As for the rest of the babble offered by the two of you, you both have had an axe to grind with me for an extended period. Honestly, neither of you rate enough for me to really care what your opinions of this are.

As for the definition of "obscene." Animals are incapable of obscene acts. See how short that was. Didn't take more than one sentence. As for the forum rules, if they include what I did as obscene or causing shock, then I disagree. But I disagree with Francois. As for you two, go find a hole to dig or something. I'd link a picture to exactly what I mean by that, but that would be obscene.

One more thing: The fact that AussieGoddess moderates a forum made up of women posters is the least surprising thing I have read this year.

Now, by all means, continue your drive by's, they make me laugh.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
I was gonna put you on it, but I knew that shitstirrer would just get edited anyway. So what's the point?;)
Plus ChirsE should get that title anyway.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Actually, I refereed to it earlier today. You can go back and see the "edited by mod" if you'd like. It spelled out the act you mention. Susan moderated it because even the description is "obscene" I guess? So I suggest that you go read the forum rules Pot Shot because according to you, you just broke them.

As for the rest of the babble offered by the two of you, you both have had an axe to grind with me for an extended period. Honestly, neither of you rate enough for me to really care what your opinions of this are.

As for the definition of "obscene." Animals are incapable of obscene acts. See how short that was. Didn't take more than one sentence. As for the forum rules, if they include what I did as obscene or causing shock, then I disagree. But I disagree with Francois. As for you two, go find a hole to dig or something. I'd link a picture to exactly what I mean by that, but that would be obscene.

One more thing: The fact that AussieGoddess moderates a forum made up of women posters is the least surprising thing I have read this year.

Now, by all means, continue your drive by's, they make me laugh.
My dogs lick their balls all the time and I tell them to stop, but I don't ban them for it. They are just dogs, that's what they do, grrrr*.



I added the grrrr so I wouldn't get in any trouble as it seems to work for Polish.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
My dogs lick their balls all the time and I tell them to stop, but I don't ban them for it. They are just dogs, that's what they do, grrrr*.



I added the grrrr so I wouldn't get in any trouble as it seems to work for Polish.
It is only if you decided to lick them that it would become obscene.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Plus ChirsE should get that title anyway.
My title is "contrarian". I am not sure what that means when logic and facts are always on my side. Upsidedownism for the win, apparently.

Doctor can't debate straight up, and I am not sure what the point is that he is trying to make in reference to me. Maybe he can post a diagram to help little old simple me understand.

The real issue is that I can type on a computer just like him, and he can't handle getting jammed by this hick in redneck town swilling bud light. Hinault said that about Merckx you know, but the "doctor" is no Merckx.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,592
0
0
OK, once again, this thread, like all threads on the main site, is not a free for all to tell each other how you feel about each other. It is to talk about US.

If you have a problem with someone, talk to us, don't take swipes at each other as you see fit. If you aren't happy with the communal ruling of the mods about the validity of your claim, or can't be bothered to raise the issue with us in the first place, that is still no license to take up your beating stick again, and start hammering.

At that point you will be treated as someone who is hammering, regardless of who started what. This is a stern warning to all here.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I have given numerous examples already - so that substantiates my claim.
So, you're incorrect - glad to clear that up.

And to add to the list Whiteboytrash (and they were almost TFF in their loathing of LA)
links please. you said many were banned for petty things, so again, links please.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
ChrisE said:
My title is "contrarian". I am not sure what that means when logic and facts are always on my side. Upsidedownism for the win, apparently.

Doctor can't debate straight up, and I am not sure what the point is that he is trying to make in reference to me. Maybe he can post a diagram to help little old simple me understand.

The real issue is that I can type on a computer just like him, and he can't handle getting jammed by this hick in redneck town swilling bud light. Hinault said that about Merckx you know, but the "doctor" is no Merckx.
As I have said before, I am more than happy to debate/discuss any issue - however, as your post shows, you are only interested in debating or discussing the poster.

patricknd said:
links please. you said many were banned for petty things, so again, links please.
Obviously I cannot link to deleted posts (but, hey you knew that) nor does the profile of some banned people appear.

But I wouldn't like to disappoint you so here are some posters that I remember:
Whiteboytrash.
Gee333
MountainGoat
BroDeal
RileyMartin.
KrapPolice.
Epoche.
As you can see these posters still remain banned, which proves my earlier point.

To further assist you, there are several names offered in this thread here - if you wish to find out more details then you should direct that to someone with Mod privileges.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Posting this here too because this directly addresses some opinions expressed by some mods here:

I am quoting this from a thread in the Clinic because all of this "don't call people trolls because it is against forum rules" is interesting in light of the admission presented here:

uspostal said:
Well said Chris, its more of a entertainment value for your posts. 1 pro LA post draws several heated responses of how stupid the post was, how bad a person LA is, and the worlds biggest cheat and fraud to walk the face of the earth. And the whole time the pro LA poster is laughing ,because he doesn't really care.
Hey, I respect the admission because I respect honesty. What is however VERY apparent there is that this idea that "many of those guys are just expressing opinions you don't like and are not trolling" isn't quite as meritorious as it is presented to be. There are several people in that thread admitting that they don't care one second about whether or not Armstrong is guilty. They only care about winding up people who dislike Armstrong.

Now, the best advice to those getting wound up by their posts is to ignore them. The second best is to respond in kind. I choose the latter many times, and I do a pretty good job sometimes. It doesn't endear me to many people, but then again, I cannot count the number of nights I have tossed and turned in bed worrying about what other people think because I have never done it, and 0 isn't a number.

I am not trying to antagonize the mods here, I am merely pointing out that there are several people who get called trolls, and are then defended as only having counter opinions who are now admitting that they are merely posting things to incite a reaction and not to actually have a discussion because they all believe that Armstrong is guilty as hell, they just like to poke people who are a bit passionate about him getting what he deserves for it...you can call that whatever you like, but a rose by any other name...
 
Jul 27, 2010
575
0
0
Firstly a big hello to all of you. I have been firmly out of the loop for a while due to family circumstances so apologies if any of this post appears scattergun or misses something salient....

I am only just catching up on the goings on here and haven't really felt that much inclination to add to any threads until I stumbled across this one.

I greatly regret that I missed TFF's link to the lonely primate (I presume that was what was contained). Honestly, it sounded very very funny. It also , for me, seems to fall under the "fair comment" and "obvious humour" banner. I am not quite sure who we are supposed to be protecting from viewing such behaviors, but when I last checked, Zoo's don't deem it necessary to carry parental advisory warnings, or to post signs outside chimp enclosures stating "These animals sometimes behave like animals, if you are likely to be offended please do not enter".

To those who seemed to find the image of a a chimp engaging in onanism so deeply offensive, might I suggest that life generally must be a deeply hazardous activity for you, let alone surfing the internet.

I get moderators and CN staff being annoyed and even possibly "offended". It was after all, an implied criticism of them I understand, but it does also appear that they can't take a joke when TFF gets banned for satirising them.
In the interests of full disclosure I should point out that my only ban on this site was as a result of posting a link to a film that consisted of two "lawyers" interviewing a potential "client". I also suggested that one of the lawyers might be a certain federal investigator. Admittedly, it was a very thorough "interview" process, perhaps even a little heavy handed and it certainly enlightened me as to the true meaning of "pro bono". Anyway, my point is that I understand my ban. Despite sticking by my assertion that it was damn funny in context, it was, in essence, "obscene" and didn't really have a place on a cycling forum. But posting a picture of Clyde making a right turn over and over again cannot surely, by anyone's rationale, be equated with it.

Having said all that, I appreciate Francois replying as to his reasoning, and ultimately I think the fact that TFF wasn't banned for longer showed that whilst they might disagree with some of us on the degree of offense caused, the mods have at least used some common sense. (Incidentally how long was he banned for? I got two months!....Two months!....still hurts....if he got any less I am going to kick up all mary hell!:D sorry TFF...I'll take everyone with me when I go!)

My second point is addressing TFF with regard to the whole "troll" debate. I think on both sides of the argument in the main talking point of this forum, there are examples of blatant derailing and bridge lurkers, without doubt. I would actually say on balance, and with the benefit of a bit of perspective lent by my absence, that I honestly think that the more egregious fanning comes from the "hate" side than from me or my fellow fanboys. Now, I understand that you will disagree with that statement, and as a side effect that may well annoy you and if I was so inclined I might well find your indignation amusing or enjoy the fact that I had provoked you to engage with me in discussion about it, or call me names etc etc. However, I would challenge your assertion that I was, as you say, "trolling". Any debate, any discussion, to be worth taking part in, is by it's nature going to contain some contrary opinions to our own. And those opinions are going to sometimes incite strong reactions, and people are going to enjoy their "victories" and other's "defeats". As I am sure you have done yourself. If you don't enjoy the battle, why engage in it so thoroughly? Just righting the greatest injustice of the modern era? Fighting the good fight? Or just plain old enjoying a good barney and some funny one liners about a guy with one nut? And why not?It's only natural? As natural as a monkey knocking one out....you might say

Anyway, good to see you are still going strong TFF. I genuinely find some of your posts absolutely hysterical, brilliant even, and others make my jaw slack with incomprehension and frustration (which admit it probably makes you smile a bit) at what can motivate such an intelligent guy as yourself, to veer so often into the land of the pompous and self righteous.;)

If you, or Wonderlance, or Chris E are ever banned permanently from this site it would honestly be the beginning of the end. Keep it up. And thanks for trying to show us why the monkey went blind.

Peace
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
straydog said:
Firstly a big hello to all of you. I have been firmly out of the loop for a while due to family circumstances so apologies if any of this post appears scattergun or misses something salient....

I am only just catching up on the goings on here and haven't really felt that much inclination to add to any threads until I stumbled across this one.

I greatly regret that I missed TFF's link to the lonely primate (I presume that was what was contained). Honestly, it sounded very very funny. It also , for me, seems to fall under the "fair comment" and "obvious humour" banner. I am not quite sure who we are supposed to be protecting from viewing such behaviors, but when I last checked, Zoo's don't deem it necessary to carry parental advisory warnings, or to post signs outside chimp enclosures stating "These animals sometimes behave like animals, if you are likely to be offended please do not enter".

To those who seemed to find the image of a a chimp engaging in onanism so deeply offensive, might I suggest that life generally must be a deeply hazardous activity for you, let alone surfing the internet.

I get moderators and CN staff being annoyed and even possibly "offended". It was after all, an implied criticism of them I understand, but it does also appear that they can't take a joke when TFF gets banned for satirising them.
In the interests of full disclosure I should point out that my only ban on this site was as a result of posting a link to a film that consisted of two "lawyers" interviewing a potential "client". I also suggested that one of the lawyers might be a certain federal investigator. Admittedly, it was a very thorough "interview" process, perhaps even a little heavy handed and it certainly enlightened me as to the true meaning of "pro bono". Anyway, my point is that I understand my ban. Despite sticking by my assertion that it was damn funny in context, it was, in essence, "obscene" and didn't really have a place on a cycling forum. But posting a picture of Clyde making a right turn over and over again cannot surely, by anyone's rationale, be equated with it.

Having said all that, I appreciate Francois replying as to his reasoning, and ultimately I think the fact that TFF wasn't banned for longer showed that whilst they might disagree with some of us on the degree of offense caused, the mods have at least used some common sense. (Incidentally how long was he banned for? I got two months!....Two months!....still hurts....if he got any less I am going to kick up all mary hell!:D sorry TFF...I'll take everyone with me when I go!)

My second point is addressing TFF with regard to the whole "troll" debate. I think on both sides of the argument in the main talking point of this forum, there are examples of blatant derailing and bridge lurkers, without doubt. I would actually say on balance, and with the benefit of a bit of perspective lent by my absence, that I honestly think that the more egregious fanning comes from the "hate" side than from me or my fellow fanboys. Now, I understand that you will disagree with that statement, and as a side effect that may well annoy you and if I was so inclined I might well find your indignation amusing or enjoy the fact that I had provoked you to engage with me in discussion about it, or call me names etc etc. However, I would challenge your assertion that I was, as you say, "trolling". Any debate, any discussion, to be worth taking part in, is by it's nature going to contain some contrary opinions to our own. And those opinions are going to sometimes incite strong reactions, and people are going to enjoy their "victories" and other's "defeats". As I am sure you have done yourself. If you don't enjoy the battle, why engage in it so thoroughly? Just righting the greatest injustice of the modern era? Fighting the good fight? Or just plain old enjoying a good barney and some funny one liners about a guy with one nut? And why not?It's only natural? As natural as a monkey knocking one out....you might say

Anyway, good to see you are still going strong TFF. I genuinely find some of your posts absolutely hysterical, brilliant even, and others make my jaw slack with incomprehension and frustration (which admit it probably makes you smile a bit) at what can motivate such an intelligent guy as yourself, to veer so often into the land of the pompous and self righteous.;)

If you, or Wonderlance, or Chris E are ever banned permanently from this site it would honestly be the beginning of the end. Keep it up. And thanks for trying to show us why the monkey went blind.

Peace
Bad genetics is the only excuse that comes to mind. If it is any consolation, sometimes I have the same reaction to my posts.:)
 
Jul 27, 2010
575
0
0
Ha ha. Fair enough.:)

One thing I wanted to add;

That whilst I disagree with the decision regarding the monkey, and others, taken by the mods, I do want to say that what they do is appreciated. Yes, moderators essentially become part of a bureaucracy, and as such at times their decisions can seem a bit ridiculous. But, they are unpaid volunteers and without them we would end up like 4chan....unreadable....a bunch of fat middled aged guys and teenage boys sat at home swapping insults and porn links....oh hang on....:confused:
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,117
0
0
straydog said:
Ha ha. Fair enough.:)

One thing I wanted to add;

That whilst I disagree with the decision regarding the monkey, and others, taken by the mods, I do want to say that what they do is appreciated. Yes, moderators essentially become part of a bureaucracy, and as such at times their decisions can seem a bit ridiculous. But, they are unpaid volunteers and without them we would end up like 4chan....unreadable....a bunch of fat middled aged guys and teenage boys sat at home swapping insults and porn links....oh hang on....:confused:
Yes, it often seems like that. Gets a bit tiresome.
 
May 21, 2010
538
0
0
Yew hew...Mods...over here!! We could use a little cleanup in the Bin Laden thread if it isn't too much trouble...
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,052
0
0
Elagabalus said:
Yew hew...Mods...over here!! We could use a little cleanup in the Bin Laden thread if it isn't too much trouble...
If there is a post that you feel requires moderator attention anywhere in the forum, its easier to just hit the 'report to moderator' button on the post itself. (its the one that looks like a roadsign)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS