Posts: 21827
Threads: 24
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: blocking ex staff members
November 16, 2016 at 11:20 pm
(This post was last modified: November 16, 2016 at 11:20 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(November 16, 2016 at 4:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Ok, so as I've expressed many times here before, I am not in the business of blocking people.
However, there is one member here who drives me absolutely crazy like none other. I won't get into why or how because that is irrelevant.
Anyway, I would like to break my own rule and block them. Unfortunately this person is ex staff and so it's not allowing me to block them. Can that perhaps be changed? Or as ex staff do these people have a specific right to not be blocked?
I'm not sure if this is something that has been over looked, or if it's like that purposely for a reason. Figured I'd ask.
Thanks!
Name names, goddamnit.
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: blocking ex staff members
November 16, 2016 at 11:21 pm
(November 16, 2016 at 11:20 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: (November 16, 2016 at 4:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Ok, so as I've expressed many times here before, I am not in the business of blocking people.
However, there is one member here who drives me absolutely crazy like none other. I won't get into why or how because that is irrelevant.
Anyway, I would like to break my own rule and block them. Unfortunately this person is ex staff and so it's not allowing me to block them. Can that perhaps be changed? Or as ex staff do these people have a specific right to not be blocked?
I'm not sure if this is something that has been over looked, or if it's like that purposely for a reason. Figured I'd ask.
Thanks!
Name names, goddamnit.
Think she's using the Rhythm method.
Posts: 21827
Threads: 24
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: blocking ex staff members
November 16, 2016 at 11:25 pm
(November 16, 2016 at 8:51 pm)Whateverist Wrote: (November 16, 2016 at 7:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Ah, but I'm okay with hitting people with bricks, Ham. I don't always have to be, academically, "correct", lol. Pew pew pew. 
But I'll bet you'd never hit a woman with a baby.
Just let one or two grow to adulthood ...
![[Image: 1794581_265690113598713_768718688_n.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-VDyLZvlgvEg%2FU8naa0OwGaI%2FAAAAAAAAty8%2FfrwontHOW5M%2Fs1600%2F1794581_265690113598713_768718688_n.jpg)
Posts: 9479
Threads: 116
Joined: July 5, 2015
Reputation:
23
RE: blocking ex staff members
November 16, 2016 at 11:28 pm
That pic is crack
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: blocking ex staff members
November 16, 2016 at 11:42 pm
(November 16, 2016 at 11:20 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: (November 16, 2016 at 4:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Ok, so as I've expressed many times here before, I am not in the business of blocking people.
However, there is one member here who drives me absolutely crazy like none other. I won't get into why or how because that is irrelevant.
Anyway, I would like to break my own rule and block them. Unfortunately this person is ex staff and so it's not allowing me to block them. Can that perhaps be changed? Or as ex staff do these people have a specific right to not be blocked?
I'm not sure if this is something that has been over looked, or if it's like that purposely for a reason. Figured I'd ask.
Thanks!
Name names, goddamnit.
Yo mama.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: blocking ex staff members
November 16, 2016 at 11:42 pm
(November 16, 2016 at 11:21 pm)Whateverist Wrote: (November 16, 2016 at 11:20 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Name names, goddamnit.
Think she's using the Rhythm method.
Bahahaha!
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: blocking ex staff members
November 16, 2016 at 11:51 pm
Let's just say I'm glad I've never got into a long in-depth debate with CL because I even get on Rhythm's nerves. 
I admit I have better manners but I'm still more annoying and robotic
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: blocking ex staff members
November 17, 2016 at 6:12 am
(This post was last modified: November 17, 2016 at 6:12 am by Alex K.)
Debating with C_L makes me absolutely furious. So... I just don't do it
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: blocking ex staff members
November 17, 2016 at 9:41 am
(This post was last modified: November 17, 2016 at 9:47 am by Catholic_Lady.)
Deleted after reading PM. 
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 12806
Threads: 158
Joined: February 13, 2010
Reputation:
111
RE: blocking ex staff members
November 17, 2016 at 11:02 am
(This post was last modified: November 17, 2016 at 11:03 am by Shell B.)
*gasp* Not all of you by any stretch. That's not a pussy reference.
ETA: Fuck's sake there was a whole other page. This is in response to FNM, but I can't be bothered to quote.
|
