Teenage Wildlife

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


Free for All
   >> Site Douchebag
Thread views: 12415 Previous threadView all threadsNext thread*Threaded Mode

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | (show all)
SoulLoveChild
(acolyte)
06/09/05 07:50 PM
Re: The Duel new [re: Debris]  

In reply to:

I just wish the writting were a bit better.




Get Bowie Back Downunder!
GBBD 2005 !!!!





96dbFreak
(acolyte)
06/09/05 08:05 PM
Re: Apologies to all ofended by my unladylike behavior new [re: Shelle]  

In reply to:

There's a difference between the inane blethering and bleating about stuff that happened here ages ago that only you remember that makes up, oh, let's say a bad 40% of your posts, and this sort of automobile accident entertainment.


LOL.

Shelle, I’d been thinking for a few days (and composing the following in my head) that I should post a message to you to say this:



Shelle, as you’re a newbie I don’t know if you’re a real person or just another one of Monkeyboy’s or Strawman’s alters but, assuming that you are a real person, can I suggest that, instead of relying on someone else’s opinion, you discover things for yourself?

Try clicking on my screen name, 96dbFreak, at the top of this post. This will take you to my profile where you can then click on the Show all user’s posts link. If you then read, at random, through the posts I’ve made you can see that more often than not the nature of my posts is relevant to the topic under discussion, helping people with answers to questions, agreeing or disagreeing with an opinion expressed, expressing my own opinion, etc. Occasionally you might come across a post where I’m being nasty. In some cases, particularly nasty. If you look deeper, at the previous posts to which I’m responding, you’ll see that I’m responding in kind to the nastiness of others.

I was looking for a particular thread to illustrate a point the other day and I discovered that, before about July 03, Coffee Shop posts have been archived, so a lot of the roots of these arguments are no longer viewable. Nevertheless, the schoolyard bully behaviour of a certain clique (whom I’ve dubbed “puppies”) at this site should become apparent, particularly if you repeat the exercise by checking out their posting history.

You might also notice that there are large gaps in the frequency of my posts. I spent a long time trying to counter the behaviour of these people, but it’s an uphill struggle since they’re particularly belligerent. I began to find it almost impossible to make regular posts without the puppy gang launching some unprovoked attack. It gets boring after a long while. Many good posters have quit because they were bullied out of here by these people. Others are too afraid to speak out (publicly) for fear of being targeted by the bully-boys (and girls, in some cases). Eventually one gets bored with having to reiterate the same tired old arguments about the same bollocks by the same deadheads, so I gave up.

I still lurk occasionally and that was how I saw, in this thread, mention of my name: R/R suggesting that NomDePlume is me (he/she isn’t). I responded and the next thing we know one of the psychos is suggesting that I sexually molest my children. Do you know anyone with kids? How do you think they’d react if you, baselessly, suggested that about them? Is it any wonder I fight back? Of course, I’m being just as Pavlovian as they, responding to the ringing bell, but I occasionally (and especially after a long layoff) find it entertaining to push their buttons and see if they react in the expected manner (which of course they do). They do the same with me.

The “dossier” to which Marquis refers is a Word file that I have where I’ve recorded information (which alter is which, real names etc) about these people. It sometimes proves a valuable resource in countering their excesses. I work as a technical writer and business analyst, so recording useful information in second nature to me. The bully boys find this amusing, but I suppose if your working life consists of flipping burgers or taking cash at the checkout in a gas station or supermarket (not that there’s anything wrong with that), you don’t really need to take notes.

My point is that you shouldn’t rely on the opinions of others, but make up your own mind, independently. Don’t be a sheep (or a puppy). Don’t take their word for it, form your own opinion.




I was going to write that stuff to you, but I see from your most recent posts that you’re clearly capable of thinking for yourself and forming your own opinion. Good on you. But watch out for the puppies, they’ll probably think you’re me now.

Stu
Get Bowie Back Downunder


96dbFreak
(acolyte)
06/09/05 08:11 PM
Re: The Duel new [re: SoulLoveChild]  

In reply to:


Cheek!

Stu
Get Bowie Back Downunder


Marquis
(acolyte)
06/09/05 08:27 PM
Either you're with me or against me new [re: 96dbFreak]  

In reply to:

My point is that you shouldn’t rely on the opinions of others, but make up your own mind, independently. Don’t be a sheep (or a puppy). Don’t take their word for it, form your own opinion.


Though if, at the end of your research, you should find that Stu is a reactionary bastard who takes pleasure in the serious physical injury of his online enemies, then that means that twister has gotten to you, even if you've never heard of twister. That's how Stu's mind works.

I don't think it works well enough to have concocted you, though, Shelle.

Stu, what do I have to do to get a peek at my file in the dossier? I imagine it's fascinating.

...then I rose, wipin' the blunt's ash from my clothes and froze only to blow the herb smoke through my nose....

96dbFreak
(acolyte)
06/09/05 08:51 PM
Re: Either you're with me or against me new [re: Marquis]  

In reply to:

…Stu is a reactionary bastard…


I’ll take that as a compliment.

In reply to:

I don't think it works well enough to have concocted you, though, Shelle.


Assuming that, by “concoct”, you mean “to invent an excuse, explanation or story in order to deceive someone”, then given that I’m suggesting that she avoid that very scenario by doing her own independent research, I’m inclined to suggest that it’s you who is attempting to “concoct” Shelle. Irony in action. What a tangled web the twisted spine has taught you to weave, Marquis. Good puppy!

In reply to:

Stu, what do I have to do to get a peek at my file in the dossier? I imagine it's fascinating.


Since I haven’t bothered with TW for quite a long time I haven’t actually looked in the dossier for ages, but as far as I recall I don’t think there’s anything about you in there. It’s mostly things like people’s real names, the ever-growing list of Strawman’s alter’s, links to threads where one of the twisted spine squad has said something particularly outrageous or contradictory, that kind of thing. Of course, if you want to volunteer information, say about your alters, I’m sure I could make good use of it.

Stu
Get Bowie Back Downunder


Marquis
(acolyte)
06/09/05 09:12 PM
Straight Fessin' new [re: 96dbFreak]  

In reply to:

Assuming that, by “concoct”, you mean “to invent an excuse, explanation or story in order to deceive someone”, then given that I’m suggesting that she avoid that very scenario by doing her own independent research, I’m inclined to suggest that it’s you who is attempting to “concoct” Shelle


Not exactly. I just meant that Shelle doesn't seem like the kind of alter ego you'd create, as you've generally proven yourself more than willing to be combatative under your publically known username.

In reply to:

Of course, if you want to volunteer information, say about your alters, I’m sure I could make good use of it.


Gladly! As far as I can recall I've had three of them, none of which made more than ten posts. I guess I lack the time and commitment of Shelle's handler. One of them, possibly, might be remembered as a mild nuissance - truth be told, I annoyed myself with it and thus quickly euthanized it - but the others were surely as quickly forgotten by the collective mind of TW as the passwords to their accounts were forgotten by me. And no, none of them ever interacted with you.

...then I rose, wipin' the blunt's ash from my clothes and froze only to blow the herb smoke through my nose....

96dbFreak
(acolyte)
06/09/05 09:22 PM
Re: Straight Fessin' new [re: Marquis]  

In reply to:

Not exactly. I just meant that Shelle doesn't seem like the kind of alter ego you'd create, as you've generally proven yourself more than willing to be combatative under your publically known username.


Ah-ha! I read it wrong. Sorry. I thought it seemed an odd thing to suggest. No, I did not concoct Shelle though I'm sure R/R will be otherwise convinced. Then again, he's mental so who cares?

Stu
Get Bowie Back Downunder


guiltpuppy
(crash course raver)
06/10/05 06:02 AM
Re: Apologies to all ofended by my unladylike beha new [re: 96dbFreak]  

Stu, you are not very smart and I don't think you will last very long in this business. But best of luck to you anyway. Also I do not like you and cannot imagine how anyone could. Lastly, in case it has not been expressed with certainty, my opinion of you is very low. But best of luck to you anyway.

There is no glamour in that jungle of hell. - Asteroid

Strawman
(acolyte)
06/10/05 07:06 AM
My Fan-List Grows new [re: 96dbFreak]  

In reply to:

Since I haven’t bothered with TW for quite a long time I haven’t actually looked in the dossier for ages


Seriously, Stuart, I can always rely on you for a good laugh. Why don't you come here more often? You know you'd prefer it to this wanketry over there where it's obvious that you & everybody else is bored shitless.

In reply to:

It’s mostly things like people’s real names, the ever-growing list of Strawman’s alter’s


Oughtn't have been too testing a task considering I posted a list of 'em here a couple of months back, albeit, four of them were falsities. The question I'm asking myself is how does your knowing my alter egos affect your lifestyle?

Dossier

"I'd like to dedicate this song to my son, all our children and the children of the world......Please send your money in"

White Prism
(cracked actor)
06/10/05 05:08 PM
Watch teh bozos rockettt! new [re: EJSunday]  

In reply to:

[EJ] I don't think that I get the full story that is being fought about here - but this certainly is the most . . .



. . . lame excuse for an argument I've ever clapped eyes on. At least in the 'classic' venomous exchanges with which I'm familiar people didn't interject with 'OMG!~ Peeps are so mean!!' or ''. It only so happens that I'm bored in some small part myself that I care to grace TW's intolerable presence with something that, by comparison at least, constitutes a fully-formed thought, so that I can leave you with the hope of enlightenment and remind you all why I was voted Mr TW in the first place.

On topic: I'm invisible because, to steal Shelle's neat division of the TW populace, I don't want the Peeps I'd Hit On hanging round unnecessarily when they see me replying to a post or PM in the mistaken belief I'm replying to theirs. That's all. Similarly, The Peeps I'd Take a Hit Out On have no business knowing what I'm doing at TW, and vice versa, really, except possibly in the case of the mods, where I understand that the caption 'Syisyo – Previewing Modifications to a Post' is one in particular to look out for.

Yeah, Loon is a true thread-weaver.

What's slightly more interesting is the behaviour of those I referred to as the 'illiterate tossers' in my first post of the evening who, despite my absence for some months, have confirmed my worst fears within several minutes of my reappearance. These are people who show no compunction in ignoring the well-substantiated arguments of others or the Guidelines of Posting (as illuminated several times by our highly conscientious mods) in order to justify their own rash of garbled, incoherent nonsense they pass off as 'truth' or even 'humour'. Having succeeded in scaring away the generation of decent (if mildly vituperative) posters who once inhabited the site, they have turned, somewhat predictably, on the few perfectly amiable Guardians of Light that remain – Marquis, to name just one.

Now, as it happens, Marquis is godlike in many ways – slow to anger, better than the mighty, rich in mercy, etc. What is particularly disturbing on this thread is how certain posters have 'ganged up' against their better judgement (though, admittedly, their judgement in disinterested cases is usually piss-poor too) with the intent of deriding and unsettling the wisdom of one so judicious and level-headed. Their ultimate goal is clear: they wish to shift the goal posts of what can be considered acceptable behaviour to suit their own preference of sub-substance discussion by

1) Posting Bucketloads of Crap. DumpyDogz has demonstrated quite effectively that volume is far more demoralising to the integrity of discussion than 'offensive' posts. While once someone so dim-witted would've been banned anon, he's spawned a horde of illiterate morons in his wake that are equally impossible to control.

2) Exploiting Fallacious Arguments. Both Stu and SLC are/were regular contributors to WankerWorld and would positively delight in diluting discussion to that level. While this ought to speak for itself, the common hallmarks of their debating, er . . . 'technique' are easy to connect with the above:

i) They post to each thread a million times (like Dogz).
ii) They post off-topic, chatty posts, such as smilies and PMs. (like Dogz).

Furthermore, I'm disturbed by this recurring pattern 'puppy' imagery among the site's truly tragic posters. Ever since Dara confessed to leathering one of the end of Dun Laoire pier, there has been a surge of animal molesters infiltrating the site, with similarly perturbing results. If, as one can assume, Stu intends the 'puppy' tag to be truly disparaging, it follows perfectly naturally that Stu, too, dislikes and murders puppies for sport.

R/R probably hits near the mark with paedophile accusations, but has overlooked the most glaringly obvious rebuttal in how The Deuce used to boast about how his minions of drooling adolescent sympathisers would be 'legal' any time soon. In light of the above, we'll assume Stu considers this natural and perfectly legit.

That's about all for now, except to ask why the fuck has Shelle got Elsie_the_cow as one of her references?


Sweetness, sweetness I was only joking when I said
I’d like to smash every tooth in your head



Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | (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