WordWolf

"We've all become God's Madmen. All of us." "I have crossed oceans of time to find you." "Our ways are not your ways. And to you there shall be many strange things." (This is STILL not a documentary on life in a religious group.) I... love you too much to condemn you."

To say that's why you're being considered a troll is pure crap. To invoke an example, Oakspear and I disagree doctrinally on nearly every particular. However, we have civil discussions and mutual respect. Ever see a shouting match between us? NO. We treat each other with MANNERS, consistent with how people are treated online, and how Christians are supposed to treat each other. Oakspear's not a Christian, and sees that clearly. Supposedly, you should see it more clearly than Oakspear. You've been told lots of times, by lots of different people, that courtesy and manners were the main problem with your posts. You've ignored all of that and maintain that it's your opinions that people disagree with. Ever consider that many of us would agree with a number of doctrines you do, if they weren't being presented in objectionably rude ways? I LIKE to agree with other Christians and respect the differences where I can. So far, the non-Christians at the GSC- and there's a number of them- make that a possibility with them. Supposedly, it should be easier with you. A) You are the one who started this.Please don't insult our intelligences by pretending you DIDN'T mean to make a PUBLIC ISSUE of you're posting status. Therefore, this BEGAN (scroll up this thread) because they were hearing "your side of the story." Paw simply responded with his side once you'd presented yours. Saying otherwise is dishonest. And transparent. B) Admins and moderators make a lot of decisions on a board. I do not expect to see either of them all over this thread, justifying their decisions over and over to your satisfaction, partly because I believe that there would never be an end to rehashing it if it we discussed it "to your satisfaction." I see you having made the deliberate decision to conduct yourself the way you wished, and then to disregard when others politely told you your conduct was inappropriate for the format and location you were engaging in it. Eventually, action was taken to reflect this, as others made their own decisions. The staff responded to your decisions, and where you took them. Now you're objecting to standards being enforced-despite receiving warnings that there were standards, and that you weren't measuring up to them. To continue to rehash that ad nauseum is neither expected of staff, nor appropriate, nor profitable, since it won't be needed for anyone else, and it won't convince you at all. The other part is that staff normally do not engage in lengthy discussions on their actions, especially when they feel it necessary to take action on a poster who has warranted action. That's true of every messageboard all over cyberspace. You don't get to dictate policy here. Neither do I. Paw has made a point of explaining himself already on this thread. You may now choose to drop the issue and continue to post, hopefully with some manners, or leave and see if you can find a messageboard that had policies you like. You can even make your own messageboard and make your own policies, and see if anyone shows up. Or you can take the low road and throw a tantrum. Up to you- use your free will. I admit, I consider this a very inventive reinterpretation of your conduct at the GSC, and I think anyone who reviews your post history would find it so as well.

No. You mean with soldiers, and armed forces, and artillery, and battlefields, and stuff. Some variation of that. This is not. Someone does 'war' on someone else, but it's not a film that anyone would classify as a 'war film'

In case he was waiting for an official notice, yes, Tom, it's your turn. :)

Darn, Belle beat me to it! If you read the Snopes page, you'll see that Petition 2493 was defeated IN 1975.

WordWolf again. And that's not exactly something you'd necessarily want. I mean, the name "Sinatra" is free publicity, especially if you are a performer who's Frank S' kid. On the other hand, Jeff Gilooly changed his own name because it was TOO recognizable.

(Emphasis mine.) Sure would be nice if we could take our posters all at face value. This is the first board I've participated in that doesn't consider that a banning offense- attacking the staff.It's almost as if he's begging for a ban. Either that, or thinks he runs things here, and the staff just have to bend over when he wants them to. I prefer not to warrant moderation. However, if I did so, I'd like to think I'd bear earning it with the grace of an adult, and skip the tantrums or public displays. "Victims of GSC" are generally of the self-made kind. I don't remember the last time that wasn't the case. I suspect most of the people who criticize moderators rather than just asking or just trusting them have never been moderators themselves. I've been both- and in several cases, I was drafted as a moderator, meaning I discovered after-the-fact that an announcement had been made that I was now made a moderator. I've also recruited moderators, and screened moderators. It's a LOT more difficult than a lot of people think. To be a moderator, you have to continually put the good of the board overall over your own opinion. It's usually a thankless job, but people will sometimes be swift to criticize you as soon as they disagree. (As in "when I do right, no one remembers, when I do wrong, no one forgets." Even on boards where I don't like the staff, I give them the benefit of the doubt on their duties. As for the behaviour that warrants staff here, I often suspect people pull it here because if they pulled it anywhere else, they'd get slapped down quickly. So, they abuse the laissez-faire posting policy until they REALLY go over the line.

I just wanted to keep this moving without cheating. ========== Ok, then, next one. "We've all become God's Madmen. All of us." (No, this is not a documentary about life in twi.)

That makes Larry part of an "elite" group. Out of hundreds and hundreds of posters that have ever posted at the GSC, only a handful have ever worked hard enough to "achieve" the status of having their posts screened. Those are the tiny few that proved to the staff-beyond all hope of a reasonable doubt to their satisfaction- that these posters needed moderation. That takes a lot of work. People have to put in a lot of time, and a lot of effort, to get that. Having made that a goal, and having achieved that goal, it's silly not to accept one's status. Since personal attacks by themselves do not get moderation, then your premise is incorrect,and it's far more than just a poster making personal attacks. And whether or not something's a personal attack IN YOUR OPINION does not guarantee the STAFF sees it the same way you do. They certainly don't see it the same way I do.

*guess* Is it "How to Marry a Millionaire?" or "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes?" if not, Raf should be next up at bat...

One of the more consistent things here is you can always count on WTH not retaining any knowledge posted here on the GSC. We discussed how the specific-HOW the people were killed by the Nazis is secondary to THAT they were killed by the Nazis, and that even WHO was wiped out was secondary to THAT many people were wiped out, but WTH's fixated. Either it's a discussion of crematoriums or he might as well not be in it. So, with lots of different definitions of "Holocaust" in use- even on websites he quoted, he deliberately goes for an archaism, one that no longer conveys the meaning used in discussions. He uses the only one fixated on crematoriums. "I guess we can all agree that Holocaust means 'something burnt.'" No, that would make every backyard barbecue a "Holocaust", which perverts the plain English discussion the rest of us are capable of having. With WTH unable or unwilling to even communicate fairly on what the Holocaust WAS, or means in regular use, what's the point in trying to follow his tortured "logic"?

[Here we go again...] [Compare that statement of WTH's to this statement from ] http://www.vho.org/Intro/GB/index.html "The word "Revisionism" is derived from the Latin word "revidere," which means to view again. The revision of long held theories is entirely normal. It occurs in the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, to which the discipline of history belongs.Science is not a static condition. It is a process, specifically the creating of knowledge by searching for evidence." [When I have more time, I'll see about what else I can find he's plagiarized in this post... Quoted so I have a reference copy for later-in case the original post's plagiarized sections suffer a sudden edit and mysteriously disappear.... Have a nice morning, everyone!

[WordWolf replies in boldface.]

That website says the writer there studied math and physics. He doesn't seem to have even STUDIED Sociology much (if at all), let along achieved any degree with it. Where did "according to some socialogists" come in? If someone had said this in the CFS class, there at least would have been a pretext to show some of the live classes that sex-with-the-dog video. Since he never studied zoology or veterinary medicine, however, I'm hesitant to consider JM as any sort of expert on dogs, so I'm not sure how authoritative his webpage is on them.

Here's how the quotes ran. "You sir, are a freako!" "Why, thank you!" Sam the Eagle, and Alice Cooper. "You don't love me any more." "Of course I love you. I'm working now!" "And you're making a lousy job of it." "You want to be an ex-parrot?" John Cleese and a parrot. "On what grounds do you interrupt my soliloquy?" "Well, it's my coffee break." "Coffee grounds??" Christopher Reeve, doing a soliloquy from Hamlet (alas, poor Yorick) when Beauregard walks in with a thermos and lunchpail, and sits down. "I thought you were the only person on this show who wasn't crazy." "Me, not crazy? I hired the others." I forget which guest, with Kermit. "Hey Bo, I've got a job for you!" "Oh, good." "Yeah. Just look at this mess." "Okay, that sounds easy enough." Kermit and another muppet. "Sometimes I don't know what space you are coming from." "Well, it's just a regular backstage space." "I gurgle Gershwin!" All the old Star Wars fans should remember this one. It was said a few times in the episode guested by Mark Hamill. Mark Hammill as himself, Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker, Anthony Daniels as C-3PO, and Peter Mayhew as Chewbacca (plus the Radio-Controlled version of R2D2) appeared in that one. 2 different characters, an auditioning gargoyle, and Mark Hamill as himself, said this line- and, later, gurgled Gershwin. As a duet. I SWEAR I am not making this up. You see Mark Hamill gurgle Gershwin once as a kid, and it stays with you whether you want it to or not... "Uh, ladies and gentlemen, Switzerland has given us some watches, some chocolate, and some silliness. And, we take you now to the Alps for the latter." "Well, do you see. I don't mind assisting, but I'm not crazy about the idea of guinea-pigging." I forget which guest, to Dr Bunson Honeydew, Muppet Labs. "What's all this smoke?" "Uh... that is not smoke." "It is not smoke? Then what is it?" "It's jet exhaust." "Jet exhaust?" "Oh, look out! Here comes another one!" "Hey, hey, what's this bummer called again?" "Minuet in G Major." "Uh, we'll send it back in to the minors." The band on one song. "If you are like me, and you certainly must be, you are appalled and shocked at the weird, unnatural things going on tonight." Sam the Eagle, when Vincent Price guest-starred. "What's the soup du jour?" "Same as yesterday." "Good, I'll have that and a chicken." "How do you want your chicken? Baked, broiled, or barbecued?" "I want the chicken for company!" I thought this would be THE giveaway. Gonzo socializes with chickens. AFAIK, he's the only character on tv who ever made a point of it. "what is on stage next?" "I don't know, what's on stage now?" "Nothing." "NOTHING'S ON STAGE?" Kermit panicking that there's a lull onstage. This was one clue the show, whatever it was, was set at a theater. "I know what is wrong, with this show, it's the theater!" "What's wrong with it?" "The seats face the stage!" Who could forget Waldorf and Statler, the hecklers? "I am not in my dressing room, eating! I am in my dressing room, being eaten!" Zero Mostel having a small problem while a guest. "A banana sharpener." Dr Bunson Honeydew, Muppet Labs. This became SUCH a running gag for me long ago, because the scene was so funny. Honeydew was deadpanning how useful sharp bananas are. For example, you could hang a coat on a banana. Later, he began throwing bananas into the wall at Beeker, like a knife-throwing act. Plus, I think the name "banana sharpener" is one of the most ridiculous names for an invention I've ever heard of. And, it's hiway29's turn.

I knew one of you could figure it out!

"Trouble ahead, Lady in red, Take my advice you'd be better off dead." "Trouble with you is The trouble with me. Got two good eyes, but we still don't see"

There's something original about Mike misremembering and rewriting history in his mind? :blink: I've DOCUMENTED it before!

That wasn't your imagination-she clearly was thinking that and said as much. But not until after they bought the whole series. Lots of Christians read and recommended the series, giving her a lot of revenue. Now that they already spent the money, she's free to offend them. Mind you, I'd actually be less offended if she'd come out and said this in the actual books. Doing it NOW strikes me as particularly greasy, underhanded, dishonest. If she wanted to make a major character gay, this "oh, he secretly was all through the series, but now that you've all bought it, now I'm going to announce it" thing strikes me as disrespectful to the readers. It's like she wanted all the "benefits" of being "open-minded" and "politically-correct", but without taking the risks of offending "traditional values" readers and affecting the sales negatively. I find that distinctly lacking courage and CONVICTION. Oh, and if one's going to say "the signs were all there", an equally-strong argument can be made for almost anything else that didn't happen in the actual books. I thought she'd made DD's personal life more like Prospero's in The Tempest, who said "My library was dukedom large enough." It probably was the way she SNUCK THIS IN after the entire series was OVER. I've read stories with homosexual characters in them and liked the stories. Then again, that's hardly the same thing- these were marketed for youths, and the stories I read, the characters' sex lives (or lack thereof) were all in the stories, and not tacked on once the series was over.

Sorry, I'm holding out for a title.

Or another quote?

I'm thinking you DID see this, just not recently. I mean, review the quotes, and you'll have the format, the setting, and at least one character's identifying trait. I thought the last set included a giveaway.

I think the TIMING of this announcement is rather CONVENIENT. There's people who seem to think this was almost accidental, since a fan asked something related. Then again, some fans have romantically matched up nearly every character with every other character- the Marauders in particular have had that happen a lot, and Harry with just about every other character in the series, including Draco. (No, I haven't read any of those stories, that's plenty of information, thank you.) That anyone would ask about DD and relationships is expected. However, JKR just HAPPENED to answer this one once all the sales of Book 7 have happened, meaning there's now a lot of books that haven't been bought. Now is the first time this has actually come up from JKR, either in the books or interviews or her website. The timing just HAPPENS to be when she can make more money by taking copies of the books and selling them to a subculture that normally wasn't soaking up her books but NOW might suddenly begin buying up the paperbacks, the hardcovers.... I think that this announcement was carefully planned, and I resent the artifice that this was supposedly some offhand comment.

It's nothing recent.

Ok, I checked, and I was right, so, next song... "Trouble ahead, Lady in red, Take my advice you'd be better off dead."