Teenage Wildlife

IMPORTANT: Use your registry nickname as your username when logging in to Conversation Piece!


Free for All
   >> Site Douchebag
Thread views: 17288 Previous threadView all threadsNext thread*Threaded Mode

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | (show all)
SoulLoveChild
(stardust savant)
07/18/04 11:43 PM
Re: In it for the money new [re: Marquis]  

In reply to:

SoulLoveChild, who acts as a one-woman fanclub for you on any argument you have going longer than 4 posts?
No offense meant, SLC. I mean, you like the Breeders, so you must be cool.


Yeah, I haven't bothered getting involved in any shit around here, supporting Stu or not, for a long time (apart from getting frustrated at tonyinsf and painocraft occasionally because THEY insist on flogging horses that died last century) But the way this thread is going was just too funny for me not to comment!

Yeah, I'm cool, thanks
(The divine SoulLoveHubby keeps reminding me, just in case I forget! He'e even cool enough for me to keep playing the Breeders over and over again )


Get Bowie Back Downunder!
GBBD 2005 !!!!





Starlite
(stardust savant)
07/19/04 00:07 AM
Re: Ok, let me have a go! new [re: 96dbFreak]  

In reply to:

Iím selective. The details I hold are primarily about those posters who have engaged in a prolonged and consistent attacks over a long period. You havenít done that, hence your minimal presence in the file.


Okay. This is just curiousity then: but is your memory really THAT bad? I mean, in order to keep a track on only those posters who engage in consistent debates with you, you first need to single out who these posters are, right? So if you remember the fact that they tend to disagree with you, why keep a dossier on them? I tend to just mentally file these people away under "people who have different opinions from me and/or are stupid prats I should really ignore." (Admittedly, I don't do the ignoring thing too well either, but that's not the point...)

In reply to:

You call it obsession, I call it high-level taking the piss.


Ah, well, but I'm a fan of Oscar Wilde, you know. (I wonder if you are too, given your affection for the "puppes" epithet?) As in, truth in apprearance, performing as being. Or in simpler words, if something looks like obsession, acts like obsession, and smells like obsession... what's the difference?

In reply to:

But thereís my entire point. I ignore the moron most of the time, but whenever he has a go at me Iím entitled to respond, no? Or is it one rule for me andÖÖ?


No, not at all. You can respond to Wraith all you want; it's just silly to say that his PURPOSE and whole motivation is to attack you, because you only read those posts of his which do. Personally, I only read those posts of his which talk about pot and rap, so in my opinion, his entire purpose is to spread the gospel of rap while high.

In reply to:

But what does "bent out of shape mean"? I really don't understand what this is. Am I not entitled to respond?


No, no, you are.

In reply to:

Why are my responses regarded as different from those of anyone else?


If you scroll up, I think Marquis explained it. They just come across as a bit more spitefull and less seeing-the-humor in it all. Like, it appears that you actually get offended on a personal level, and tend to attack with personal insults.


Maybe if I write this now, while drunk, you'll all understand.

96dbFreak
(acolyte)
07/19/04 00:34 AM
A handbag? new [re: Starlite]  

In reply to:

So if you remember the fact that they tend to disagree with you, why keep a dossier on them?


Because I really canít remember Strawmanís IP address in my head. Similarly other specifics, like which seldom-used alter-ego belongs to which well-known poster, are not things that I can recall for months on end. Iím not a hot shot Yale or Harvard graduate in astro-physics (or whatever it is) like you, so maybe I donít have a great memory. Iím human. Sue me.

In reply to:

I wonder if you are too, given your affection for the "puppes" epithet?)


Indeed, been a big fan of OW for 30 years or so.

In reply to:

As in, truth in apprearance, performing as being. Or in simpler words, if something looks like obsession, acts like obsession, and smells like obsession... what's the difference?


Or if it whimpers, pisses on the carpet and behaves like an idiotÖit must be a puppy?

In reply to:

Öit's just silly to say that his PURPOSE and whole motivation is to attack you, because you only read those posts of his which do


But those are the only ones that are of interest to me. He is a moron. Iím not interested in anything else that he has to say. But if he addresses me personally he always does so in attack mode. Hence my view of him is coloured by his behaviour (whimpering, pissing on the carpet etc). Is this making sense?

In reply to:

If you scroll up, I think Marquis explained it. They just come across as a bit more spitefull and less seeing-the-humor in it all. Like, it appears that you actually get offended on a personal level, and tend to attack with personal insults.


Oh, and the personal insults used toward me are what, minor pleasantries? Do me a favour. So Iím spiteful, am I? Boo fucking hoo. If you canít stand the heat, go piss in the back yard instead of on the kitchen carpet. I think the problem is that some people, and you Americans in particular, are too polite. You go to the bathroom instead of the toilet. You'll be in a public place and ask for the "bathroom" or "restroom". What, do you want to take a bath? Have a nice lie down? Or are you just busting for a crap? See? I come from the north of England and now live in Australia. In both societies we speak plainly. We don't couch our meaning in euphemism to hide our embarrassment. What seem to you to be "spiteful" is in fact, just me being natural (and naturally humorous). Jesus you people would freak if you had to try to get by in the real world (and no, Americaland is not the real world). Yes, I know it's a difficult concept to grasp, just like laughing at something funny without being prompted to do so by a machine. Christ almighty, you have the gall to cite Oscar Wilde, one of the best piss-takers in the English language, and you complain about me?

And still my puzzlement persists. Why the hell do you people care so much?

Stu
Get Bowie Back Downunder
The GBBD 2005 campaign starts here!


Starlite
(stardust savant)
07/19/04 01:10 AM
A black one at Victoria station new [re: 96dbFreak]  

In reply to:

Iím human. Sue me.


As I said, I was merely curious. That was a decent answer, no need to ruffle your ear-feathers.

In reply to:

But those are the only ones that are of interest to me. He is a moron. Iím not interested in anything else that he has to say.


But if you only read those posts of his that attack you, he might be complimenting you in half the posts of his that you don't read!

Guess you meant, "I only read those posts of his that address me," huh? Coulda used better editing.

In reply to:

Indeed, been a big fan of OW for 30 years or so.


Or a fan of his critics, since it was they who called his characters and his circle "puppies." Wouldn't that make twister Oscar Wilde? Weird.

Maybe if I write this now, while drunk, you'll all understand.

96dbFreak
(acolyte)
07/19/04 01:59 AM
Your Majesty is like a stream of bat's piss new [re: Starlite]  

In reply to:

But if you only read those posts of his that attack you, he might be complimenting you in half the posts of his that you don't read!


Ah, comedy! Now you're getting the idea. Eureka, she's found a sense of humour!

In reply to:

Guess you meant, "I only read those posts of his that address me," huh? Coulda used better editing.


Hmm, and when I said "But if he addresses me personally...." what did you think I meant?

In reply to:

Or a fan of his critics, since it was they who called his characters and his circle "puppies."


It was you who made reference to Wilde and "puppies". I never mentioned it.

Stu
Get Bowie Back Downunder
The GBBD 2005 campaign starts here!


96dbFreak
(acolyte)
07/19/04 02:22 AM
It sodding was not. new [re: Starlite]  

In reply to:

Guess you meant, "I only read those posts of his that address me," huh? Coulda used better editing.


Unless you meant that I didn't need to say "But those are the only ones that are of interest to me. He is a moron. Iím not interested in anything else that he has to say."

What fun would that be? I reserve my right to be insulting towards the little twat. You just don't want me to have any fun, do you?

Stu
Get Bowie Back Downunder
The GBBD 2005 campaign starts here!


diamondogz74
(acolyte)
07/19/04 05:59 AM
You twerp. new [re: 96dbFreak]  

In reply to:

I just try to ignore idiots - like you!



What a twerp

______________________
Humming Rheingold
We scavenge up our clothes

______________________
London Bye Ta-Ta...

White Prism
(crash course raver)
07/19/04 07:38 AM
TW: Life support new [re: Starlite]  

I donít particularly want to get embroiled in another argument (dealing with assmunches like DD74, Pablopicasso and Hangontoyourself is quite enough, thank you), so here are a few neutral points which people can bastardise and tailor to their own arguments!

Obviously I, too, post out of boredom, though I make sure my targets are well chosen. I can tolerate a great many different opinions from intelligent posters, provided they are backed up well enough, yet I clamp down on idiots who fail to bring any discussion here, like DD74 (who canít string sentences together, yet alone arguments), pablopicasso (a completely vacuous and humourless individual who yawns at people who do make interesting posts) and Hangontoyourself (whoís here only to dribble over the WICKEDNESS of DD74ís avatar and make herself look like a prick). And Ė most alarmingly of all Ė these are some of the most regular contributors who, from the amount of time they spend here, must lead the dullest lives on the planet. They are not here to relieve their boredom, but to detail the minutiae of every bloated thought and every habitual urge of their everyday lives. I am still yet to click on the whoís online screen without seeing Pablow arsing around in his usual gormless manner. On his ĎPartyí thread (which Hannibal cruelly resurrected) you get the impression that watching the whoís online screen is his idea for a bloody good night out. So while everybody else is posting out of boredom, their boringness still beats the crap out of Doltedogz74ís, Pablowís and Hangyourselfís more exciting escapades without even trying.

Anyway, about criticism and protracted arguments: I find it just as effective to write a few longer and more concentrated posts outlining the idiocy of the small few than pursuing them with constant heckling (something which, given the pervasiveness of DD74, Pablo & HY, Teenage Wildlifeís Annoying Three Shitheads - henceforth: TWATS - would be impossible). Not only does this present a more compelling case, but it reduces the amount of wasted board space and should relieve some of the tedium for those not involved. Of course, youíll probably experience a backlash of impulsive responses (just as Iím expecting to this post), but I seriously doubt theyíll contain anything meaningful or coherent to refute the charges, so are simply not worth responding to.

Unfortunately, the longer an argument goes on (as in several cases of the joke about Stuís dossier), the more likely the same things are repeated and the same accusations levelled. I remember one particularly mind-numbing exchange with Doltedogz74 where we argued with each other for 30 odd posts or so (I canít remember which thread now) but by the end I had restated my position (somewhat unnecessarily) innumerable times and Iím pretty sure that, even though he was speaking in another language, my message finally got through. So obviously, when you criticise someone or make a joke at their expense, you should expect something similar back and, should the reply be miraculously humorous, be willing to let it drop and move on rather than trawl over the same old retaliations. Iíve found both sides of this argument amusing in places (e.g. the stuff about Wilde worked quite well), but, hey, maybe itís about time we were drawing proceedings to a close about now.

As a final note: Although this is sadly another lengthy rant about the obstinacy of some posters to fuck this place up (Iím thinking particularly of the TWATS once again), I feel by no means obliged to pick fights with anyone on a random basis. Before the TWATS came along, I quite happily meandered around TW for the best part of 4-5 months without bickering with anyone at all, but as long as they choose to remain here Iíll show no compunction in pointing out their twat-dom, and advise them that itís in their best interests to leave TW for good.


Big tits are God's way of making Mousey's posts interesting

96dbFreak
(acolyte)
07/19/04 09:38 AM
Re: TW: Life support new [re: White Prism]  

In reply to:

TWATS


WP, you are the king of acronym.

Stu
Get Bowie Back Downunder
The GBBD 2005 campaign starts here!


pablopicasso
(stardust savant)
07/19/04 10:13 AM
Re: TW: Life support [re: White Prism]  

Yes ShitePrism, that is really a great acronym wonder how long that took to work out.
Oh by the way, I haven't been on TW for nearly 15 hours, hope you didn't miss me. Could you please tell me, considering you are so adept in showing other peoples failings and contributions, just what your contribution is to the board, besides that is, looking down your nose at people and being under the false assumption that you are in some way superior to others?




Having so much fun with the poisonous people

This post is pending White Prisms' approval




Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | (show all)
Previous threadView all threadsNext thread*Threaded Mode
Jump to

Teenage Wildlife Davie Bowie | Email Us! Forums powered by WWWThreads v5.1.5perl

Teenage Wildlife Home Page Bowie's music Info on Bowie Other Media Have your say! Search the Site Help me!


Toolbar (Interact)

Etete Systems