Teenage Wildlife

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


Free for All
   >> Site Douchebag
Thread views: 17378 *Threaded Mode

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | (show all)
96dbFreak
(acolyte)
07/18/04 10:00 PM
Re: Did you know those are dead people laughing?! new [re: Wraith2]  

Then why don't you just ignore me? Why do you take every opportunity to post attacks upon me? Why are you so obsessed with me? Who the fuck are you? [laugh track]

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


SoulLoveChild
(stardust savant)
07/18/04 10:03 PM
listen to yourself ranting about Stu! new [re: Wraith2]  

And you keep falling for it, hook line and sinker


Get Bowie Back Downunder!
GBBD 2005 !!!!





96dbFreak
(acolyte)
07/18/04 10:05 PM
Re: listen to yourself ranting about Stu! new [re: SoulLoveChild]  

Cass! Don't give away the secret. I'm trying to see how long it takes them to figure it out for themselves! You've ruined it now!

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


SoulLoveChild
(stardust savant)
07/18/04 10:09 PM
wonder what he's gonna say now?! new [re: 96dbFreak]  

shazaam


Get Bowie Back Downunder!
GBBD 2005 !!!!





Marquis
(acolyte)
07/18/04 10:34 PM
In it for the money new [re: SoulLoveChild]  

As long as we're picking at scabs, don't you think its a bit curious that while you continue to flog the dead horse of the 'twister's puppies' joke, you yourself have 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.

Sadness is for poor people.

96dbFreak
(acolyte)
07/18/04 10:38 PM
Re: In it for the money new [re: Marquis]  

SLC is her own woman, she needs (and would take) no direction from me. She has also been the subject of the puppygang attentions so she has a vested interest.

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


Marquis
(acolyte)
07/18/04 11:00 PM
Shut Up You Fucking Baby new [re: 96dbFreak]  

In reply to:

SLC is her own woman, she needs (and would take) no direction from me.


I never meant to imply anything to the contrary. Yet you always (and yes I realize you claim it to be 'humor') go out of your way to imply that posters like myself, Wraith, Starlite, etc., are all taking direction from each other against you. So if I'm not meant to read anything into the fact that the two of you are often on the same side of arguments (and I don't), wouldn't it be nice of you to extend the same courtesy should Li'l Alex and I find ourselves in agreement?

Back to Mr. Show for a moment: yes, I can imagine that some of the show's humor might not translate so well, being that a lot of it is built around 'taking the piss' (am I using that phrase correctly?) out of American pop culture. David Cross (the little bald fellow) is also a stand-up of some note, in my opinion. He does something of the free-form rant in the style of Bill Hicks; I'd recommend finding one of his CDs .

Sadness is for poor people.

96dbFreak
(acolyte)
07/18/04 11:10 PM
Re: Shut Up You Fucking Baby new [re: Marquis]  

In reply to:

Yet you always (and yes I realize you claim it to be 'humor') go out of your way to imply that posters like myself, Wraith, Starlite, etc., are all taking direction from each other against you.


I don't think I've inferred that you (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) are one of the conspirators for a very long time. I even recently acknowledged that Starlite probably wasn't. And since Twister has been mercifully absent from these boards for such a long time, and Strawman has left us never to return, and R/R rarely shows his ugly presence around here much more, the whole idea of a conspiracy (which you people bring up far more frequently than I do) is obviously a joke (as you acknowledge). That being the case, the whole idea of some kind of reciprocity is a joke itself. Oh, I get it, you're trying to be funny. Laugh? I nearly did.

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


Starlite
(stardust savant)
07/18/04 11:14 PM
Ok, let me have a go! [re: 96dbFreak]  

First off, just wanna get it clear, that unlike whatever other posters, I post and get into fights solely when I'm bored. And yes, I'm bored now.

Stu, for your own good, may I bring a tiny little inconsistency in your position to your attention, in a friendly way? That inconsistency is: you say that, except for those who pick on you, you don't remeber us other TWers, and we all blend together. That is a good passive-agressive statement, bravo! It says, "you think you fuckers are worthy of my attention? Heck no, I don't even bother enough with you to tell you apart! I'm way above your obsessive petty bickering!"

Very good. Very effective.

Except... then you say that you keep a dossier to catalogue who's had arguments with you in the past so as to be well equipped for future ones.

See, unfortunately, this blows the whole "I don't care about you fuckers" stance away, and instead gets across the message of "I DO care, a lot, but I have a damn shoddy memory."

Now, of course you want to defend yourself, and rightly. But if you didn't care about us fuckers, why would you plan and prepare for future (as yet nonexistent!) arguments? If you truly were above the fray, you wouldn't care about getting into arguments with anyone, either. It would just be so way below you. If and when someone DID insult you, you'd fire back, but surely you'd be able to do so using whatever had just transpired in order to get this person mad at you. You wouldn't need obsessively documented back-up.

If you maintain that people attack you without any cause, then you could also just as easily retaliate with, "that doesn't even have to do with anything, so fuck off, snot-ass," and go on your merry way. Because gues what? If you don't care about this snot-ass, you wouldn't even bother of going through the trouble of storing info on them! What do his insults mean to you, anyway? You're above that!

But see, keeping documented tabs on people that you can use later unfortunately creates the impression that you need these tabs, because you'd be unable to stand up to them otherwise, based on the argument actually in question. It says, "I need cheap shots! I can't argue with twister/r/r/Wraith2 about the actual issues they're bringing forth, but I can make hurtful, beside-the-point personal remarks about their girlfriends or lack thereof, from info I've stored on my hard drive or read up on their livejournals!"

Now, I believe that you're better than that, Stu. I believe that you ARE capable of standing up for yourself without relying on Jossie's journal for providing you with ammunition, and that you aren't trying to get across the message of total obession and paranoia. So I'm just telling you how someof what you say can be a little counterproductive. In your own best interest, right?

Oh, and, this is also a little weird:

In reply to:

By contrast, you [Wraith2] almost seem to make it your purpose (or so it appears to me), to concentrate on having a go at me.


But, if...

In reply to:

if I see a thread started by you, I generally won't even bother to begin reading it. If I see a post by you, I'll rarely bother to look at it. I know you're a complete tosspot, so I avoid you as much as possible.


And...

In reply to:

I only respond when you have a go at me


isn't that self-obvious? Don't you think that the reason it appears that Wraith's "purpose" is to attack you is that you ONLY read those posts of Wraith's that do so, and ignore all his OTHER posts?

I mean, that's like if I only read those posts on TW that mentioned "bacon," and never read anything else, and then complained about how the only thing that anyone ever talks about here is bacon.

And finally,

In reply to:

one rule for me, another for you


No, see, no. It's like Marquis. He insults people, yeah? He can be all cutting. But when people dish it back at him, he doesn't get all bent out of shape, but accepts it or jokes back. That's the rule, see. That if you're gonna lash out at people, you should be able to accept it when they lash back at you.

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

96dbFreak
(acolyte)
07/18/04 11:33 PM
Re: Ok, let me have a go! [re: Starlite]  

In reply to:

Except... then you say that you keep a dossier to catalogue who's had arguments with you in the past so as to be well equipped for future ones.

See, unfortunately, this blows the whole "I don't care about you fuckers" stance away, and instead gets across the message of "I DO care, a lot, but I have a damn shoddy memory."


Yes but that assumes that every single twat who has a go at me ends up in the dossier. They don’t. You and schizophrenic once appeared on my bozo list, and I have a record of that, so yes you’re in there…but that’s it.

I’m selective. The details I hold are primarily about those posters who have engaged in a prolonged and consistent attacks over a long period. You haven’t done that, hence your minimal presence in the file.

In reply to:

I believe that you ARE capable of standing up for yourself without relying on Jossie's journal for providing you with ammunition, and that you aren't trying to get across the message of total obession and paranoia. So I'm just telling you how someof what you say can be a little counterproductive. In your own best interest, right?


Yes, but that’s just part of the fun. That evil little twat Twister has his live journal on the net for the world to see and it links to that of his girlfriend. Now I know how much my “obsession” with Twister annoys his pals who remain here at the board (R/R etc), so I deliberately dip in there occasionally to get some material to annoy them with. You call it obsession, I call it high-level taking the piss.

In reply to:

Oh, and, this is also a little weird:
……
…isn't that self-obvious? Don't you think that the reason it appears that Wraith's "purpose" is to attack you is that you ONLY read those posts of Wraith's that do so, and ignore all his OTHER posts?


But there’s my entire point. I ignore the moron most of the time, but whenever he has a go at me I’m entitled to respond, no? Or is it one rule for me and……?

In reply to:

No, see, no. It's like Marquis. He insults people, yeah? He can be all cutting. But when people dish it back at him, he doesn't get all bent out of shape, but accepts it or jokes back. That's the rule, see. That if you're gonna lash out at people, you should be able to accept it when they lash back at you.


But what does "bent out of shape mean"? I really don't understand what this is. Am I not entitled to respond? Why are my responses regarded as different from those of anyone else? I honestly don't understand what you mean.

And for that matter, what does “accept it” mean? You seem to be suggesting that it’s OK for them to lash at out me, but not OK for me to respond. I’m just supposed to sit back and take it, am I? Can you possibly understand how it seems to me that that is what you are saying? Would you do that?

Edit: And can you also appreciate why I'm so perplexed that almost every innocuous little remark I make seems to be so important to you guys? I mean, I say "Two more for the dossier" and it turns into a multi page shit fight with (it has to be said) many of the usual suspects returning to the fray with the same old unfathomable arguments. Maybe it's something in the water in Americaland?

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



Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | (show all)
*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