[zen jihad]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
\

gorgonzola when 90% of the threads in here are petty questionable anti-Bush threads, ESP when they are posted usually by the same person.. come on.

Usually when a poster keeps posting the SAME stuff over and over again people usually poke fun at that fact. And the admins usually ask said person to stop being so obsessive with their "plight"

But now it's just the opposite. Why?

I think you mods do a good job for the most part. But what is SEVERELY laking in MacNN is consistency.

It's not a question of the topics, but probably the response of people to them. There's a big difference between answering cohesively, and just mocking the poster. I think that's what the mod is saying, which is evidenced in this thread.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
zen if I posted 4 or 5 threads a day with questionable articles about Kerry, the way Lerk does about Bush, the SAME THING would have happened to me. If not more so.

And the mods would tell me to chill out because I was upsetting the crowd.

But it seems the mods take on this has went the opposite direction this time.

I am wondering why.

But that happens, there has been a number of kerry threads, but I think the issue is in how people respond, rather than the mere posting of many similar themed topics.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
It's not a question of the topics, but probably the response of people to them. There's a big difference between answering cohesively, and just mocking the poster. I think that's what the mod is saying, which is evidenced in this thread.

zen and I am telling you when I did the same thing and was severely mocked (twice as worse than Lerk) I was told to stop going overboard with all the negative posts.

I am just wondering if any mods have told Lerk to chill out with his obsessive actions.

His threads aren't posted here to spark conversation. It's "Here look at this page of this guy who thinks like I do about Bush, proof he SUCKS!!!" They ad nothing buy petty hatefulness.

Not saying that no one should post negative posts about Bush. But Lerk isn't very selective about what he posts. If it's negative against Bush, regardless of the validity he posts it and then acts self-righteous if people rag on him for it.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
It's not a question of the topics, but probably the response of people to them. There's a big difference between answering cohesively, and just mocking the poster. I think that's what the mod is saying, which is evidenced in this thread.

I didn't mock anyone, initially. Lerk simply posted a bunch of numbers and phrases and rather than read his mind regarding his post's purpose, I simply replied with a curt so what. I never got an answer to that, and then someone popped-off about avoiding a discussion -- so then I went and mocked his post by posting my little list (and it needs to be updated, too: my butt has itched three times now).

Anyway, I don't think any harm was done and we're all just having fun -- plus I'm looking for a place to post my new thread pic. Ah cripes, I'll do it here anyway, even though I'm suuuure I'll get in trouble for it some way or another:



Maury

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
zen and I am telling you when I did the same thing and was severely mocked (twice as worse than Lerk) I was told to stop going overboard with all the negative posts.

I am just wondering if any mods have told Lerk to chill out with his obsessive actions.

His threads aren't posted here to spark conversation. It's "Here look at this page of this guy who thinks like I do about Bush, proof he SUCKS!!!" They ad nothing buy petty hatefulness.

Not saying that no one should post negative posts about Bush. But Lerk isn't very selective about what he posts. If it's negative against Bush, he posts it and then acts self-righteous if people rag on him for it.

Ok, fair point. But, I'd say that lerk's posts, while some might think negative, do cover a wide range of topics, and are presented cohesively. It's a bit different to obvious troll posts. Again though, I don't think the mods were digging up the topic starters, but those who reply to them. In which case, it's pretty even-handed in terms of who is admonished. Maybe they had enough of extremely off-topic, personal attacks in this thread, I can understand why.

That's what I think the mod was getting at, but I can understand where you are coming from, but I guess that is perception.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
Ok, fair point. But, I'd say that lerk's posts, while some might think negative, do cover a wide range of topics, and are presented cohesively. It's a bit different to obvious troll posts.

What are you talking about? This thread IS an obvious Troll post. Most of his petty Bush threads ARE Troll posts.

Again though, I don't think the mods were digging up the topic starters, but those who reply to them. In which case, it's pretty even-handed in terms of who is admonished. Maybe they had enough of extremely off-topic, personal attacks in this thread, I can understand why.

And like I said, when I was doing it, it was blamed on me. I shouldn't have been posting those troll posts if I didn't want such a reaction. I was told I should have known better.

And for the most part. I agree.

In other words, When Lerk posts this troll threads, he should know that they will get trollish reactions.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I didn't mock anyone, initially. Lerk simply posted a bunch of numbers and phrases and rather than read his mind regarding his post's purpose, I simply replied with a curt so what. I never got an answer to that, and then someone popped-off about avoiding a discussion -- so then I went and mocked his post by posting my little list (and it needs to be updated, too: my butt has itched three times now).

Maury

Amazing how you felt I was responding to you personally. What the mod said, was to a few people. not just you. As to the Ad Hominem remarks on Lerk, again, there was a ton in here, hence the mocking part of my post.

Oh, nice pic, but I think you need to brush up on your color correction skills, and maybe post it somewhere that is relevant.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What are you talking about? This thread IS an obvious Troll post. Most of his petty Bush threads ARE Troll posts.

Again, it's called perception.

And like I said, when I was doing it, it was blamed on me. I shouldn't have been posting those troll posts if I didn't want such a reaction. I was told I should have known better.

And for the most part. I agree.

In other words, When Lerk posts this troll threads, he should know that they will get trollish reactions.

Perception once more, which is why I think the mods stepped in, they semed to think the balance of fairness was to be tipped in Lerk's direction.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zen jihad:

Again, it's called perception.

A duck is a duck, no matter if someone perceives it as a swan.

Someone who is anti-Bush to the point Lerk is, probably will see this as ok.
Anyone else sees it as a troll post that it was.

Perception once more, which is why I think the mods stepped in, they semed to think the balance of fairness was to be tipped in Lerk's direction.

And I am saying they aren't being consistent. Lerk was doing the same thing I was doing with Kerry awhile back. And *I* got scolded publicly. Not the posters that were flaming me.

I am not saying there is a "Kerry<>Bush" bias here. I don't know what is causing the inconsistency. But you cannot expect users to follow rules that change daily.

You set an example with one person, and do the exact opposite with another. It confuses users as to what is ok and what is not.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
A duck is a duck, no matter if someone perceives it as a swan.

Someone who is anti-Bush to the point Lerk is, probably will see this as ok.
Anyone else sees it as a troll post that it was.

And I am saying they aren't being consistent. Lerk was doing the same thing I was doing with Kerry awhile back. And *I* got scolded publicly. Not the posters that were flaming me.

I am not saying there is a "Kerry<>Bush" bias here. I don't know what is causing the inconsistency. But you cannot expect users to follow rules that change daily.

You set an example with one person, and do the exact opposite with another. It confuses users as to what is ok and what is not. [/B]

It's all in the presentation, that's what I assume is the criteria for a troll post, or not. Anyway, I personally can see the mod's POV, but I can't speak for him. I guess you need to clarify it with him.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
It's all in the presentation, .

Not just presentation, but attitude, and the substance of the post.

EVERYONE has probably posted a troll thread now and then. But it's the consistency that Lerk shows is what people are complaining about.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not just presentation, but attitude, and the substance of the post.

EVERYONE has probably posted a troll thread now and then. But it's the consistency that Lerk shows is what people are complaining about.

But then we're back to perception, and who is complaining, how, and in what way. That's just normal for people to view the matter depending in their leanings, but I guess the difference here is the mod stepping in. So maybe they saw something we didn't quite catch.

[Zimphire]

Anything there to see is here for anyone to see.

The mods just need to be more consistent.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Anything there to see is here for anyone to see.

The mods just need to be more consistent.

Guess we'll just have to see what they say.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not just presentation, but attitude, and the substance of the post.

EVERYONE has probably posted a troll thread now and then. But it's the consistency that Lerk shows is what people are complaining about.

Yeah, at least one military industrial complex conspiracy with 12 galaxies and black helicopter SWAT teams "they're watching us" thread each week.

Zen, you sig sucks.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
Oh, nice pic, but I think you need to brush up on your color correction skills, and maybe post it somewhere that is relevant.

Heh, nice attempted dig at my "color correction skills." I guess if I had bothered to do that, your comment would bother me. Other than that, if you can't see that the image fits pretty much ALL posts in this hilarious thread, you need to reread them all -- we're all sounding like a bunch of litle whiners!

Who went and made the internet no fun anymore?

Maury

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Zen, you sig sucks.

Yes I just noticed it. If it's just a tongue in cheek dig that is one thing. But if he actually thinks that... I don't know what to say really.

[Lerkfish]

actually, I'd prefer people respond to the topic, if possible.

to railhead: i asked you to clarify what you meant by "so what"...you didn't, but claim I didn't respond.
Regardless, the purpose of posting this thread is that I like how it illustrates how Bush claims to have certain priorities, yet his actions prove otherwise.

Its a clarifying thread, to highlight part of what I think is wrong with the current administration.

[Zimphire]

People DID respond to the topic. Most of us agreed. It was crap.
WE KNOW what you think is wrong. You make it KNOWN daily.

Next.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:

Zen, you sig sucks.

I take it there's an 'r' missing from 'your' there.

Oh, which part of my sig sucks? I kinda like it, was thinking of putting something a bit daring, but thought I'd play it safe instead. For instance, keeping it relatively related to Bush, you know? Bush inheriting his fortune from Nazi investments.

Nice huh?

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Heh, nice attempted dig at my "color correction skills." I guess if I had bothered to do that, your comment would bother me. Other than that, if you can't see that the image fits pretty much ALL posts in this hilarious thread, you need to reread them all -- we're all sounding like a bunch of litle whiners!

Who went and made the internet no fun anymore?

Maury

It wasn't a dig, just thought the image was up for comment since it was part of a reply to my post.

It's cool though, just thought it was aimed squarely at me.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes I just noticed it. If it's just a tongue in cheek dig that is one thing. But if he actually thinks that... I don't know what to say really.

A bit of both to be honest. Bush's family fortunes tainted by Nazi money, combined with, IMO, a Nazi like agenda which is unfolding slowly in front of our eyes. Now, when I say Nazi, it's not to mean something like Neo-Naziism, but to rather conjure up images of fear. Well, sounded good at the time.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
A bit of both to be honest. Bush's family fortunes tainted by Nazi money,

So are tons of other rich people in this country... that has about as much relevance as Bush's eye color. And it really has nothing to do with Bush himself.

combined with, IMO, a Nazi like agenda which is unfolding slowly in front of our eyes.

Really? Bush is planning on exterminating the Jews and taking over Europe?

Now, when I say Nazi, it's not to mean something like Neo-Naziism, but to rather conjure up images of fear. Well, sounded good at the time.

Yeah but it sounds kinda silly now doesn't it?

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

So are tons of other rich people in this country... that has about as much relevance as Bush's eye color. And it really has nothing to do with Bush himself.
[/b]

I don't care? Point being, there's more to Bush than what many people know, so if people are interested in this angle, then by all means go search the Net for more info.

Really? Bush is planning on exterminating the Jews and taking over Europe?

No, really, a Nazi-like agenda taking form in front of our eyes, my opinion of course, which you can disagree on till you're blue in the face. I really don't care what you say on the matter.

Yeah but it sounds kinda silly now doesn't it?

Oh really? A bit like the sig you had recently, in which you equated Kerry voters as being terrorist supporters?

A bit silly, isn't it?

[zen jihad]

Hey, I changed it. Nice huh?

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
A bit of both to be honest. Bush's family fortunes tainted by Nazi money, combined with, IMO, a Nazi like agenda which is unfolding slowly in front of our eyes. Now, when I say Nazi, it's not to mean something like Neo-Naziism, but to rather conjure up images of fear. Well, sounded good at the time.

********.
Nazi=Nazi
"No, I don't mean a Nazi, but I called him one!"
This is the most tired thing this nutjob board ever does. "Nazi!" "Fascist!" "Sieg Heil!" "Hitler!"
So Bush is the Nazi most supportive of Israel? Bush is the Nazi with more black men in his cabinet that Clinton? Bush is the Nazi who you guys claim has a bunch of neocon Jews running foreign policy? [That's laughable, but it's what I hear around these parts] Bush is the Nazi who bends over backwards not to scrape a Mosque? Bush is the Nazi who did what�when did he murder millions?
Stop this crap. Besides, by the numbers, Stalin killed twice as many people as Hitler. Both are pure evil, but Stalin put more to death. It amazes me how people can still use the hammer & sickle, symbol of the most murderous regime in modern history, and still get away with that. Hammer & Sickle= Swastika.
Sorry for the rant, but that **** just annoys me.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
<-snipped rant->

Oh, I mean Nazi, in the way that it evokes evil, control, and murder. Is that clearer?

Plus, I don't care about your opinions. Enjoy the weekend.

[zen jihad]

Anyway, like Lerk said, let's stay on topic now, there's been enough off-topic posts in this thread so far.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
A duck is a duck, no matter if someone perceives it as a swan.

Unless it's a chicken and you're trying to convince everyone it's a duck to steal its eggs.

Someone who is anti-Bush to the point Lerk is, probably will see this as ok.
Anyone else sees it as a troll post that it was.

Or anti-Kerry as you are.

[gorgonzola]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You have got to be kidding. I'd say 9/10 of my posts are topic-related (or tangent-related, for discussions often stray). God forbid I feel a certain post is a desperate reach, but now you're going to forbid that I even attempt to call it as I see it?.

Whatever, Neal. Ignore me, ban me, do whatever you feel is necessary to eliminate my point of view from this forum.

I wasn't singling you out, and I didn't say this was the only example of that behavior (in fact, I went out of my way to say that this was *not* what I meant). It's not something that is by any means limited to this particular example ('desperation') and is by no means limited to the "conservatives." I don't want to ban you, I didn't attempt to forbid any posts of this kind (only requested that you stop -- perhaps I should have been clearer about the difference), I didn't attempt to or suggest that I wanted to eliminate your point of view, and I didn't even threaten anything. I just pointed out an annoying *general* trend, and everyone is welcome to continue posting in the same vein if they really think it's productive.

Perhaps you read what I said as forbidding such posts, but that wasn't quite the intention. The ambiguity was my fault, then. And I do agree with you that most of your posts are topic related; I don't think I suggested otherwise. In retrospect, since you certainly aren't the worst offender (by a long shot), it may have been a bad idea to use your post as an example of the general trend.

My point was only that I think the general trend is counterproductive.

[Edits for clarity.]

[gorgonzola]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
gorgonzola when 90% of the threads in here are petty questionable anti-Bush threads, ESP when they are posted usually by the same person.. come on.

Usually when a poster keeps posting the SAME stuff over and over again people usually poke fun at that fact. And the admins usually ask said person to stop being so obsessive with their "plight"

But now it's just the opposite. Why?

I think you mods do a good job for the most part. But what is SEVERELY laking in MacNN is consistency.

I think I've been going out of my way to be as consistent as possible, but obviously nobody can be 100% consistent. However, there are other mods, and we hope that the combination of everyone's efforts averages out the inconsistencies. Overall, I think the Political Lounge has been relatively calm recently as far as disciplinary action (banning, etc) goes.

And yes, the original poster is to blame in part as well, and I will bring it up, but my point was one that I noticed after browsing several threads, many of them started by the same people who posted these 'desperation' posts. (Not including spacefreak, if memory serves -- trying to be fair.) So I pointed it out. I didn't lock the thread, I didn't really yell at anybody, I didn't ban anyone, and I didn't threaten anything. If all the posts had really been prompted by threads posted by a single person, I would have dealt with that person, but that wasn't the case.

No one person or group is to blame for almost every one of these problems, but it's almost as if it's impossible to point out any single example of misbehavior without being yelled at for not pointing out the multitude of other examples simultaneously (which isn't practical, obviously).

But if people disagree, they're welcome to ignore my post and continue in the same vein. I didn't threaten any disciplinary action, only opined that I thought it was counterproductive. I agree that a good deal of it comes from whoever starts the thread, so we'll look into it.

Anyway...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
IOh really? A bit like the sig you had recently, in which you equated Kerry voters as being terrorist supporters?

A bit silly, isn't it?

Huh? I never said they were Kerry supporters. Just because someone doesn't support Bush doesn't mean they support Kerry.

silly indeed.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
Oh, I mean Nazi, in the way that it evokes evil, control, and murder. Is that clearer?

Plus, I don't care about your opinions. Enjoy the weekend.

Murder? You'll go far with that.

[CreepingDeth]

Yeah. Crazy people think evil doesn't exist but attribute the adjective to Bush for no reason. They call him a murderer, Nazis, war criminal, etc.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
People DID respond to the topic. Most of us agreed. It was crap.
WE KNOW what you think is wrong. You make it KNOWN daily.

Next.

No kidding. Any monkey can cut and paste.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by gorgonzola:
I agree that a good deal of it comes from whoever starts the thread, so we'll look into it.

Anyway...

my response:

Just as well. When I returned, I was posting as normal. Out of nowhere several started attacking me. at first, I responded in kind, and got put on notice. Then, I decided to only respond to posts which were on topic. If someone posted three or more attacks in a row against me, unrelated to the topic, I put them on ignore. I mainly knew what they posted if someone else responded to it.
Occasionally I would open a random post by the worst offenders. If there was a question of substance or on topic, I responded. If it was another personal attack, I did not, for the most part. You can go back over the threads and see this is, in fact, true. This may have meant I inadvertantly missed posts by the worst offenders, if they DID post them, as I saw no point in opening responses by some of the worst since their signal to noise ratio was poor. There's me starting a thread, about a dozen or so attacks against me personally, someone FINALLY talks on topic, and I respond to THEM.
I think you could compare my thread starting rate to those starting threads who are pro-Bush, and you'll find I"m still quite behind. The difference is all of my threads get cluttered with squatters: people who don't wish to debate the topic of the thread one way or the other, but prefer to attack me.
If I point that out, I get a fresh volley of attacks for "playing the victim", etc.
Therefore, my new strategy was to simply ignore the worst offenders as much as possible, UNLESS they actually had something of substance to say, at which point I would respond.

But, apparently, even THAT is not good enough. Now, because of the poor behaviour of others (which I have been doing my best to ignore), many of the threads devolve quickly.
If the threads devolve into flamefests, I think if you will read the threads wiht an open mind, you'll see it is not me that is creating that outcome. I am often the one reminding people to post on topic.
For those who cannot seem to do that, For the most part I attempt to ignore them. With them on ignore, I'm able to respond to those who want to discuss the topic. Unfortunately, the same group squat on every thread, and I can see that for people who don't have them on ignore, their poor behaviour can be a little wearying. The only thing I can say is that I myself have not witnessed the full effect, so I haven't seen it as that bad of a problem, and certainly not MY problem (by that I mean not a problem of my creation or responsibility). If that group does not like the topics I post, they certainly are welcome to not post in them themselves. Not every topic here has to pass republican approval for fitness.....right?

However, to the extent that the poor behaviour of others has made this a problem for people who do not have these problem posters on ignore, I apologize on their behalf. I will not, however, apologize for my own behavior which has been quite exemplary of late, in terms of NOT getting involved in flamefests, even though that was the intent of many.

later.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
my response:

Just as well. When I returned, I was posting as normal. Out of nowhere several started attacking me. at first, I responded in kind, and got put on notice. Then, I decided to only respond to posts which were on topic. If someone posted three or more attacks in a row against me, unrelated to the topic, I put them on ignore. I mainly knew what they posted if someone else responded to it.
Occasionally I would open a random post by the worst offenders. If there was a question of substance or on topic, I responded. If it was another personal attack, I did not, for the most part. You can go back over the threads and see this is, in fact, true. This may have meant I inadvertantly missed posts by the worst offenders, if they DID post them, as I saw no point in opening responses by some of the worst since their signal to noise ratio was poor. There's me starting a thread, about a dozen or so attacks against me personally, someone FINALLY talks on topic, and I respond to THEM.
I think you could compare my thread starting rate to those starting threads who are pro-Bush, and you'll find I"m still quite behind. The difference is all of my threads get cluttered with squatters: people who don't wish to debate the topic of the thread one way or the other, but prefer to attack me.
If I point that out, I get a fresh volley of attacks for "playing the victim", etc.
Therefore, my new strategy was to simply ignore the worst offenders as much as possible, UNLESS they actually had something of substance to say, at which point I would respond.

But, apparently, even THAT is not good enough. Now, because of the poor behaviour of others (which I have been doing my best to ignore), many of the threads devolve quickly.
If the threads devolve into flamefests, I think if you will read the threads wiht an open mind, you'll see it is not me that is creating that outcome. I am often the one reminding people to post on topic.
For those who cannot seem to do that, For the most part I attempt to ignore them. With them on ignore, I'm able to respond to those who want to discuss the topic. Unfortunately, the same group squat on every thread, and I can see that for people who don't have them on ignore, their poor behaviour can be a little wearying. The only thing I can say is that I myself have not witnessed the full effect, so I haven't seen it as that bad of a problem, and certainly not MY problem (by that I mean not a problem of my creation or responsibility). If that group does not like the topics I post, they certainly are welcome to not post in them themselves. Not every topic here has to pass republican approval for fitness.....right?

However, to the extent that the poor behaviour of others has made this a problem for people who do not have these problem posters on ignore, I apologize on their behalf. I will not, however, apologize for my own behavior which has been quite exemplary of late, in terms of NOT getting involved in flamefests, even though that was the intent of many.

later.

LOL. You are so full of yourself it's not even funny any longer.

In other news, if a forest burns down it's the fault of the trees, animals, and forest, and not the jackass who threw the smouldering cigarette butt out the window in the first place.....

[Zimphire]

[Spoogepieces]

The guy really needs help desparately.

Does anyone have that attention whore graphic handy?

[CreepingDeth]

For Lerkfish?

[Spoogepieces]

Yeah.

[OldManMac]

Don't worry about it, Lerk. My ignore list is growing as well. There is a core group of about 6 to ten individuals who are not really here to discuss anything. They're here to post their one or two word putdowns, their one or two word affirmations of others' posts (always concurring of course), and, rarely, a couple of sentences of regurgitation.

[Lerkfish]

actually, even though I realize the count changes as people post and push some threads forward to the top of the list, I would point out that at the moment, on the front page of this forum, I have 6 threads I started and Zimphire has 6 threads he started.

Just an interesting statistic. Another one is that looking at the front page at the moment, there are 50 threads displayed. only 15 of them are started by someone who is not republican.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Yeah.

His posts breakdown into either one of these:



Besides, it's not the thread count. It's the members. This forum is like a 45� angle to the left, but it has gotten better since the first couple weeks I've been around. Besides, it's our propaganda convention week, so excuse us.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually, even though I realize the count changes as people post and push some threads forward to the top of the list, I would point out that at the moment, on the front page of this forum, I have 6 threads I started and Zimphire has 6 threads he started.

Just an interesting statistic. Another one is that looking at the front page at the moment, there are 50 threads displayed. only 15 of them are started by someone who is not republican.

How many of those I posted about Kerry Lerk?

1.

1 of the posts got 3 posts and I had it locked. Doesn't even count.

MOST of my threads in this part of the forum have been humor ones.

I do admit I like to make fun of punk boy riot/protesters.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
only 15 of them are started by someone who is not republican.

You don't know who is a republican or not here. I am voting for Bush, but I'm not a republican. I don't belong to any political party.

[Zimphire]

That doesn't even matter. It's a strawman used to distract.

Ignore it.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How many of those I posted about Kerry Lerk?

1.

1 of the posts got 3 posts and I had it locked. Doesn't even count.

MOST of my threads in this part of the forum have been humor ones.

I do admit I like to make fun of punk boy riot/protesters.

Yes, Zimph isn't much for conspiracies. Just mindless humor.
I was watching this today and saw someone with an Anti-Flag shirt on there, the one with their circle x logo over the blue part of a backwards upside-down flag. Pitiful. They have a song calling Mumia a political prisoner. At least when some metal bands got a little political, it could be interpreted different ways and not be as obnoxious. He was a punk. There are plenty in these parts. But still funny to look at, like goths.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How many of those I posted about Kerry Lerk?

1.

1 of the posts got 3 posts and I had it locked. Doesn't even count.

MOST of my threads in this part of the forum have been humor ones.

I do admit I like to make fun of punk boy riot/protesters.

the point is, the basis of the complaint about my threads is the number of them. If I am posting no more than someone else, namely you, why isn't it an issue against you?

Just interesting.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
the point is, the basis of the complaint about my threads is the number of them. If I am posting no more than someone else, namely you, why isn't it an issue against you?

Just interesting.

No not the number of them. No one said that.

It's what is inside that counts.

You post a lot of Anti-Bush tripe conspiracy "i think Bush is teh suck" threads.

Ones that add nothing new. It's the same rant.