He won't stop. And y'all are dumb for not ridding 1 member who pushes multiple members away.
Apparently you, Cain, and a dozen of other users, matter less in their opinions than Turncoat. Because Turncoat feels that Cawk will suddenly behave and renounce his compulsive need to plague us with child rape content.
Meta won't host a forum just for you, he's made that more than clear today over both sensible and personal reasonings. You trying to make a forum for yourself can't work within these confines, they just can't.
The only way it would work is if you hosted it, you'd have complete control, you could scour the net for like minds to draw into your little web, and you'd have what you're after. You won't find it here, you'll never have found it here, as that's never who these people were or what they were about, not even back when they were being pretend badasses.
It just doesn't make sense. Wanting to kill the place over the perceived deaths of it's ideals is something people can fall behind when it's otherwise the case, but wanting to kick everyone out who's not like yourself is highly unsustainable if you aren't the one at the helm inviting like-minded people yourself.
... but you claimed I can't cause any damage without Jim. :^)
Cawk said:You've read me wrong on multiple occasions, you were so far off that I even facepalmed. I typically facepalm only at RetardEd's brainless attempts to manipulate me or you when you try to understand my mind.
Like when you thought I hated niggers because Jim was dating CS. That was borderline retarded of you.
Alright, have it your way.
Why argue symptoms of your clinically diagnosed mental disorder? Take it as is.
I have a degree in psych and specifically focused on disorders and otherwise my life thus far has been very fixated on "the human condition" within that range, and as a result I can tell more easily when they're making mistakes or otherwise doing more blatant tactics in the field, both through reading them as people and knowing their rhetoric. A lot of psychology's potential for success comes from trusting them baselessly and not knowing what they're going to say before they say it.
Study the rhetoric and they become predictable enough to jinx the entire process for the majority of their self-righteous textbook parrotings, and it makes how much they don't listen become twice as obvious when you actually have real points to make with them instead of being the placid receiver they want. With one therapist I had to actually bring in print outs to catch her up in her own field from how much she was trying to high-horse her degree, it was sad. I've only met a few practicing people who I'd even say are really trying to bridge with their patient instead of just "doing a job".
In the end they're still human, they just did a little more research than the other guy on this specific subject. Typically they fall prone to many cognitive bias', especially Anchoring, and while studying things tends to conjure the Dunning-Kruger Effect in most people for some reason Psychology seems to work somewhat inversely to the fallacy.
Either way, as much as I don't mind talking about my disorders and the experiences I had to slag through to get to this point, bringing up my disorder as a reason to not follow the train of thought is a post-rationalization. You could have just as easily gone with "You read me wrong" like most people do, but instead felt the need to make it into something more exterior when it wasn't necessary towards the discussion. It's not quite ad hominem from it having partial relevance, unlike Spatial for instance calling me OCD for having spammed a website, but it still serves to not venture where these ideas are coming from and why others may come to similar findings based on your displays here otherwise.
Even you agreed with my self diagnosis, that I might have paranoid personality disorder. And you still think I don't know myself?
I said it was an interesting guess, and that even if it's not right that it still shows something about you for pondering it as a potential answer.
I wouldn't presume to know, especially through this format, but the things I get right tend to telegraph themselves when they can't help but confirm it through self-demonstrating retaliations.
It is up to GOOD to finally make Cawk's ban official. It is quite rare that so many people in this community agree on something, and strongly enough that they ACTIVELY COMMENT on it. It is only YOU now who struggle against a more forceful way to stop this disgusting behavior that we have to put up with, and YOU are not the community or that important in it to have any veto power.
Why would I be banned, RetardEd? I don't post CP.
It is up to GOOD to finally make Cawk's ban official. It is quite rare that so many people in this community agree on something, and strongly enough that they ACTIVELY COMMENT on it. It is only YOU now who struggle against a more forceful way to stop this disgusting behavior that we have to put up with, and YOU are not the community or that important in it to have any veto power.
Why would I be banned, RetardEd? I don't post CP.
You affect the functionality of this site. The community agrees that you do, and you are at the mercy of the community and its prosperity. You still don't get this, do you.
The rule is for the benefit of the community, and its purpose is whatever suits the community. Twisting it to favor a little man with a massive inferiority complex, goes against the very purpose of the rule.
He won't stop. And y'all are dumb for not ridding 1 member who pushes multiple members away.
Apparently you, Cain, and a dozen of other users, matter less in their opinions than Turncoat. Because Turncoat feels that Cawk will suddenly behave and renounce his compulsive need to plague us with child rape content.
Funny how you single me out, Inquirer agreed with me without prior discussion between us being the cause.
More proof I'm "The Mod" I guess.
It is up to GOOD to finally make Cawk's ban official. It is quite rare that so many people in this community agree on something, and strongly enough that they ACTIVELY COMMENT on it. It is only YOU now who struggle against a more forceful way to stop this disgusting behavior that we have to put up with, and YOU are not the community or that important in it to have any veto power.
Why would I be banned, RetardEd? I don't post CP.
You affect the functionality of this site. The community agrees that you do, and you are at the mercy of the community and its prosperity. You still don't get this, do you.
The rule is for the benefit of the community, and its purpose is whatever suits the community. You twisting it to favor a little man with a massive inferiority complex, goes against the very purpose of the rule.
This is not a popularity contest.
You can't ban me without betraying your principles.
It is up to GOOD to finally make Cawk's ban official. It is quite rare that so many people in this community agree on something, and strongly enough that they ACTIVELY COMMENT on it. It is only YOU now who struggle against a more forceful way to stop this disgusting behavior that we have to put up with, and YOU are not the community or that important in it to have any veto power.
Why would I be banned, RetardEd? I don't post CP.
You affect the functionality of this site. The community agrees that you do, and you are at the mercy of the community and its prosperity. You still don't get this, do you.
The rule is for the benefit of the community, and its purpose is whatever suits the community. You twisting it to favor a little man with a massive inferiority complex, goes against the very purpose of the rule.
This is not a popularity contest.
You can't ban me without betraying your principles.
...actually, we kind of can now based on your track record alone.
Granting one last shot is beyond generous and mostly is being done out of principle. There's enough of a paper trail behind you now that banning you'd be entirely justified.
"Popularity Contest" does seem to be an unavoidable factor somewhat. If someone does deplorable things and they're liked, the community doesn't urge as quickly towards following the rules, while if they do deplorable things and aren't liked it becomes reason to remember why those rules were made in the first place. Essentially the rules are there for a reason, and/but the crowd can apply pressure.
Cawk said:You can't ban me without betraying your principles.
One should not cling to principles and rules, but purposes. Principles and rules are guidelines to maintaining or achieving SOMETHING. Compromising/sacrificing the end result in favor of sticking to a principle is retarded and makes no sense.
As it happens, in this case the end goal is the prosperity of this community. And I genuinely, wholeheartedly believe that your behavior here is pushing people away, be them old users or potential new ones. So I have no issue with cutting you away if talking to you reasonably about the trash you're intentionally plastering on the forum has zero effect.
