(February 17, 2017 at 9:22 am)LastPoet Wrote:

(February 17, 2017 at 8:58 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Key phrase being 'out of context' in which quoting accurately is already a rule. Personally I've never quoted someone out of context in my Sig, I've quoted someone that contradicted themselves, and I've quoted someone that made a patently false statement. All sorts of ad hominem attacks are allowed, but putting someones quote in your sig is all of a sudden a bridge too far.

Do you believe its fair to parade someone's quote on a sig from a topic unrelated all over. If I had the stupidity to go look, I could find something you posted that is bad. But then I have the mental fortitude to adress people on topic, if I wish.

This is the crux. This rule serves theistic, atheistic and all betwixt.

So yeah, we are not going to warn you for quoting Jesus.

(my bold)

Besides.... you can't quote Jesus out of context if he never said anything in any context because he never existed

(February 16, 2017 at 6:16 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote:

(February 16, 2017 at 5:43 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: The bolded part is new.
...
If you have such things in your signature, we are giving a week for offenders to clean up their signature before we start enforcement.

So what you're saying is that I can harass all of the members I want for the next 168 hours, as long as I do so in my signature?

That is great news.  When do our 168 hours start, booger brains?

(February 17, 2017 at 10:07 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Huggy...it wasn't a rule before because it wasn't a big enough problem to warrant a rule.  You were just being an ass, so the staff stepped in.  Now, it's apparently become a big enough problem that it does warrant a rule, so one was put in place.  You aren't the victim of a staff conspiracy, relax.

The first time I quoted someone in my sig, he was identified only by the initials BW, can you tell me who that is? The second time I asked the persons permission and he gave it to me, how is that being an ass? Besides being an "ass" is subjective, for example, a particular admin posted a couple of my quotes in the Hall of shame forum, but the second I post one of his quotes in the same forum, I'm the asshole, that shows you there is a clear bias.

All there needs to be to have a "conspiracy" is for 2 or more people to secretly agree to skirt the rules; If you admit no rules were broken then what basis is there for punishment?

My point is if the staff can just "step in" as you put it, why don't they do that in every case since there is already precedent set for it.


*edit*
I should add that I'm not making reference to current staff since the majority of them weren't staff at the time.

Because we hate you. Isn't that what you want to hear?

To me Huggy's like a fart during a blizzard.

(February 18, 2017 at 7:43 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Because we hate you. Isn't that what you want to hear?

I wouldn't go that far, heck Drich received more hate than I ever did...

---

(February 18, 2017 at 7:50 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: To me Huggy's like a fart during a blizzard.

^^^^^^^

One of the former staff btw...

And for good reason. Hateful attracts the hatted.

(February 18, 2017 at 7:59 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 18, 2017 at 7:50 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: To me Huggy's like a fart during a blizzard.

^^^^^^^

One of the former staff btw...

My observation skills was always one of my greatest strengths as staff

(February 18, 2017 at 7:59 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: ^^^^^^^

One of the former staff btw...

Expressing a personal opinion. You really are a disingenuous cunt, aren't you?

Maybe I should finish:

He's like a fart in a blizzard: Rather irrelevant.