Locking topics because Eric doesn't like them

Resurrection of all-time best threads

Moderator: Moderator

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 20218
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:50 am
Location: Seattle

Postby muthafunky » Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:51 pm

Uh oh. Umm, just how far can you go back?


Don't let him fool you, all the old mod forum posts were removed before the new batch came on. Though I think I have a backup somewhere.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:45 pm
Location: Vancouver

Postby Dallan » Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:54 pm

thoughtpolice wrote:The seafood buffet was very good.

That wasn't seafood, it was the rank leftovers from the Admin's executive dining room

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 15995
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: In the belly of the beast

Postby thoughtpolice » Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:58 pm

Oh. So shrimp are not naturally blue?
I live on the Prairies.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:45 pm
Location: Vancouver

Postby Dallan » Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:01 pm

thoughtpolice wrote:I live on the Prairies.

A pleading cry for help if ever I heard one.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 6819
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:05 am
Location: Bay Area -- SF, CA (Don't even think of calling it 'Frisco.')

Postby Wilster » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:15 pm

I wonder if SoJerk will swallow his pride and acknowledge that Moe has one kick-ass thread going here; over 240 replies and ten times that number in views--Christ, SoJerk might be an ass on this one.
My moniker is Wilster. How is my posting? If you no like, write suggestions down intelligibly on paper and then...burn it.

stewbie
User avatar
Posts: 1261
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 11:32 pm

Postby zara » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:39 pm

mutha is fixing

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 15995
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: In the belly of the beast

Postby thoughtpolice » Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:24 am

If this forum equates me with a John Smoke or a zara then I really need to go back to the drawing board.

You can only hope to get to Z level.

Otherwise, get out the crayons, skippy.

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:51 pm
Location: RTW

Postby candy is dandy but... » Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:32 am

Wilster wrote:I wonder if SoJerk will swallow his pride and acknowledge that Moe has one kick-ass thread going here; over 240 replies and ten times that number in views--Christ, SoJerk might be an ass on this one.


Characterised mainly by Moe's continuing absence, and the fact that his attack has rebounded.

But he's reading this, and he'll be back.
I want my fucking money back

Admin's Concubine
User avatar
Posts: 30580
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:00 pm

Postby pezworld » Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:50 am

Er, Candy, look on page 5.
Jesus, you turn your back for one second and the next thing you know, everyone's going all fucking kumbaya and shit around this dump - Moe

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:51 pm
Location: RTW

Postby candy is dandy but... » Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:52 am

Wishful thinking on my part. He continues to suck all the oxygen out of here then. Great.
I want my fucking money back

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 9016
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:11 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Postby Moethebartender » Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:22 pm

Dallan wrote:I agree Moe, that thread should not have been locked and I'm sure everyone cowering in the Mod's Forum have learned a valuable lesson.

Apparently not. As I said, this isn't the first time this has happened, regardless of what your search turned up. And apparently it won't be the last either:

molson84 wrote:It was locked because of the 6 replies I saw they were all of the off topic attack theme with both your enemies and allies. No attempt at any discussion of what was in the OP....and as I said, after it was unlocked, no other on topic contribution has/was made.

Plenty of topics get spammed on here Eric. You don't shut them down; clearly you've got a bit of a hard on about the topic in question and the people who generally post about it.

In any case, why was 'Annie Cat's' valuable contribution left on that thread?

You let your grudges dictate your decisions - basically you are shit as a moderator. Six posts? How long was that thread active before you locked it? Why do you think people would comment on it after you'd locked it and let it scroll down off the page you moron?

Eric wrote:If someone was legitimately trying to debate the topic, I would've pruned it. Nobody did.

Three points: 1 -you didn't give it a chance; shutting it down six posts after it was posted. 2 - there was no need to lock the OP, there was nothing offensive about it. Why lock a legitimate OP just because some of the feltist diet people can't resist spamming threads about SA? 3 - the spam that was posted wasn't terribly offensive (unlike some of the other threads - you needed to jettison that, but you allow kindred and to post ad nauseum about fags and the like? You're utterly deranged).

Eric wrote:Again, you are free at any point in time to go find the thread and make a valuable contribution on the latest political developments in Ecuador and I promise not to prune or lock it.


You've already given lie to that statement on more than one occasion eric. You fucked up, everyone knows you fucked up - suck it up and fuck off if you can't do the job without letting the tiny bit of power that you've been given go to your pointy little frostbitten head.

Chachi wrote:Back to soda's point about the popularity of certain posters and what they have to say.

I could start a thread about shoehorns and get at least 150 replies.

True. This fact has soda gripping hard. For his next attempt at reinventing his background, I understand that he's going to pretend to be a refugee from a Chicago car dealership with a vicodin habit who is fleeing persecution for odometer backrolling.

Sullen teabag wrote:Characterised mainly by Moe's continuing absence, and the fact that his attack has rebounded.

But he's reading this, and he'll be back.


You really don't pay attention much, do you dumbshit? Does being blatantly wrong and oblivious to your surroundings ever grow tiresome?

Where've you been lately Candy? The forum has sorely missed your dour demeanor and constant attempts at obsfucation.
Seamus McCool wrote:I've been trying to bang chicks on political stew for over 10 years.

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:52 pm

Postby AnniesCat » Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:28 pm

Moe almost sounds suicidal. His life has been destroyed because someone locked his shit uninteresting post.

You could no make this up.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 6819
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:05 am
Location: Bay Area -- SF, CA (Don't even think of calling it 'Frisco.')

Postby Wilster » Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:24 pm

AnniesCat wrote:Moe almost sounds suicidal. His life has been destroyed because someone locked his shit uninteresting post.

You could no make this up.


I wonder if Herr Eric will realize that this is clearly off topic; eh Eric?
My moniker is Wilster. How is my posting? If you no like, write suggestions down intelligibly on paper and then...burn it.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:00 am

Polardude wrote:Moe also puts out very good, provocative threads onissues he knows well. The reason they don't draw any interest is the intence focus on the US, Joooz and Israel.


I agree. Moe's very useful for the breadth of subjects he adds here. There are several other posters who also go off the main track. Whether they get many views or replies, it contributes.

Soda, you are using peculiar but predictable logic to justify your evaluation of worthwhile posters. The reason your threads often run on so long is that, as has been pointed by several posters, you don't debate in good faith but obstruct, refuse to clarify or back up what you mean etcetera. I had a 'debate' with you where for several pages you refused to give me a citation for 'despot theory' from a shelf of books which were supposedly in front you and which supposedly contained ample instances to the phrase. You play at being the scholar but then treat as bizarre the idea of supplying a very basic citation which an undergraduate could do in their sleep (you ran out several times the strawman that I was asking for ISBNs, which have nothing to do with a standard bibliogrpahical citation). Well that certainly helped spin out that thread and still you didn't supply the evidence you said was right in front of you. whta was the point in that?

The reason I look at your threads is because they are often actually on interesting subjects. But the reason they go on for so long is because, like aseveral other posters who rack up mammoth thread totals, you don't really debate, you just engage in a series of evasive tactics designed to draw the conversation out until people finally lose interest and kick themselves for wasting time.

In this respect you are like Argon, Methuselah, Toytone and Mali. It's true you can all get a large number of replies to your OPs. It's also true that if you all formed a committee, between you you still couldn't come up with a remotely sophisticated argument supported by evidence and employing a credible line logic. you never even seem to try.

The most interesting OP I've read in the past few months was by greenlantern where he quoted and discussed the rehabilitation of a political theorist called Arthur F Bentley. Neither of us had heard of him, but his ideas about group interests in politics were being discussed. I came up with one attempt at a serious answer, greenlantern replied to that, and a piece of tumbleweed blew through the thread. It's possible people missed it for all kinds of reasons. It's also possible that neither GL nor myself had even understood Bentley properly. But I thought it was a very interesting and timely topic, and I know with GL that even if I'm disagreeing with him he'll answer perceptively and in good faith. He's genuinely interested in trying to understand and discuss ideas, including unfamiliar ones. Shoes is another poster who does that.

I would rather have fifty three-post threads like that to read or take part in than yet another two hundred-post wild goose chase where you use all your imagination and effort to avoid giving a straight answer or evidence to support your OP claim, and where people finally realize we've had our time wasted by Soda again - at which point you congratulate yourself on having generated so many replies.

As I've indicated, it's particularly disappointing as you do often start threads on promising subjects. I am always hoping you will finally deliver. But if you really judge a thread on how many views and replies it gets, then you should of course continue to employ your characteristic 'debating' tactics.
21 minutes of adventure!

Previous

Return to Famous Dishes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest