"What was the sensible thing to do? There was no Piggy left to talk sense."
- William Golding, Lord of the Flies, Chapter 12

(02-20-2010, 02:06 PM)Duchess Wrote: Nothing I've said has been unwarranted, not one word...

Oh really? Accusing ME of hacking into Mock wasn't unwarranted??

Duchess Wrote:Yeah, MF & I pretend, 'cuz it has the power to send some around the bend & that's pretty amusing from our standpoint, that's why we do it & we are successful damn near every time...

Is that what you tell your significant others? Because no one here really gives two shits whether or not you two want to bump uglies.

I don't know... maybe things will settle down and get back to 'normal'. Time will tell.

Duchess Wrote:I know there are a few that live & breathe this kinda thing but, not me.

And yet, you probably spend more time here than anyone else in the forum. ::lol::

(02-20-2010, 03:18 PM)Middle Finger Wrote:

(02-20-2010, 11:16 AM)SyberBitch Wrote:

(02-19-2010, 08:26 AM)Middle Finger Wrote: What if Sally kept posting your other name on purpose, even after warned? What should happen? Now transfer that to posting links to your real personal info. On principle, should that be tolerated even though on one level it is no big deal? Anyway, there are always two sides to the story, at least.

The main difference, is that Lumpy just posted a 'link' to your information from what I understand. Posting a link to your information would not connect your 'real world' info to this forum in a forum search, unless it was the actual name of your business website in the link.

Forum search capability is not the criteria. Posting a link to personally identifying info is inappropriate and against the rules regardless of who can search or who will use it and how. Period. Keep making excuses though.

Oh suck off, Frank.

It IS relevant whether or not the post was damaging to you personally. Honestly, I wouldn't give a fuck if anyone posted all of my 'real info' in this forum, as long as it was in the 'members only' section where no one could find it with an internet search.

(02-20-2010, 10:36 PM)SyberBitch Wrote: And yet, you probably spend more time here than anyone else in the forum.

You go from saying, at one point, that you don't think I'm the kind of person that would live their life through a forum to, I probably spend more time here than anyone else...

(02-20-2010, 10:43 PM)SyberBitch Wrote:

(02-20-2010, 03:18 PM)Middle Finger Wrote:

(02-20-2010, 11:16 AM)SyberBitch Wrote:

(02-19-2010, 08:26 AM)Middle Finger Wrote: What if Sally kept posting your other name on purpose, even after warned? What should happen? Now transfer that to posting links to your real personal info. On principle, should that be tolerated even though on one level it is no big deal? Anyway, there are always two sides to the story, at least.

The main difference, is that Lumpy just posted a 'link' to your information from what I understand. Posting a link to your information would not connect your 'real world' info to this forum in a forum search, unless it was the actual name of your business website in the link.

Forum search capability is not the criteria. Posting a link to personally identifying info is inappropriate and against the rules regardless of who can search or who will use it and how. Period. Keep making excuses though.

Oh suck off, Frank.

It IS relevant whether or not the post was damaging to you personally. Honestly, I wouldn't give a fuck if anyone posted all of my 'real info' in this forum, as long as it was in the 'members only' section where no one could find it with an internet search.

Forum search capability, how damaging it became, and even how much Syber gives a fuck about her own personal info is not the criteria. The criteria is posting a link to personally identifying info is inappropriate and against the rules regardless of who can search or who will use it and how. Period. Keep making excuses though.

(02-20-2010, 12:28 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(02-20-2010, 11:12 AM)SyberBitch Wrote: I'm sure I can find plenty of ways to embarrass YOU.

Good luck with that...::lol::

I promise Duchess, those nekkid self pics you sent me will forever remain sealed on my hard drive.

(02-21-2010, 11:30 AM)thekid65 Wrote:

(02-20-2010, 12:28 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(02-20-2010, 11:12 AM)SyberBitch Wrote: I'm sure I can find plenty of ways to embarrass YOU.

Good luck with that...::lol::

I promise Duchess, those nekkid self pics you sent me will forever remain sealed on my hard drive.

Careful now, I might hack in and steal them

(02-21-2010, 11:39 AM)D Wrote: Careful now, I might hack in and steal them

Yeah, I've heard about your reputation. As we all know, everything said on this forum is gospel.

Whenever people fight, and mean it, I get nervous like a little kid around abusive adults.

(02-21-2010, 08:34 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(02-20-2010, 10:36 PM)SyberBitch Wrote: And yet, you probably spend more time here than anyone else in the forum.

You go from saying, at one point, that you don't think I'm the kind of person that would live their life through a forum to, I probably spend more time here than anyone else...

I'm not sure where I said that I didn't think you would live your life through a forum, but it was probably before I realized how entrenched in all of this bullshit you really have become.

(02-21-2010, 08:58 AM)Middle Finger Wrote: Forum search capability, how damaging it became, and even how much Syber gives a fuck about her own personal info is not the criteria. The criteria is posting a link to personally identifying info is inappropriate and against the rules regardless of who can search or who will use it and how. Period. Keep making excuses though.

Ok, so you're saying that rule are purely arbitrary and there isn't necessarily any real reason for the rules, other than 'those are the rules and that is that'. Glad to see that you and Duchess are on the same 'page' (so to speak) in forum administration.

(02-21-2010, 02:56 PM)Cracker Wrote: Whenever people fight, and mean it, I get nervous like a little kid around abusive adults.

You should do well here then. ::lol::

(02-21-2010, 05:10 PM)SyberBitch Wrote:

(02-21-2010, 08:58 AM)Middle Finger Wrote: Forum search capability, how damaging it became, and even how much Syber gives a fuck about her own personal info is not the criteria. The criteria is posting a link to personally identifying info is inappropriate and against the rules regardless of who can search or who will use it and how. Period. Keep making excuses though.

Ok, so you're saying that rule are purely arbitrary and there isn't necessarily any real reason for the rules, other than 'those are the rules and that is that'. Glad to see that you and Duchess are on the same 'page' (so to speak) in forum administration.

No, I am saying that the rules are obviously to stay away from fucking with or exposing people's private personal info, and linking to it is included. The rest is just you exaggerating, making up drama, making excuses, etc.

(02-21-2010, 05:40 PM)Middle Finger Wrote:

(02-21-2010, 05:10 PM)SyberBitch Wrote:

(02-21-2010, 08:58 AM)Middle Finger Wrote: Forum search capability, how damaging it became, and even how much Syber gives a fuck about her own personal info is not the criteria. The criteria is posting a link to personally identifying info is inappropriate and against the rules regardless of who can search or who will use it and how. Period. Keep making excuses though.

Ok, so you're saying that rule are purely arbitrary and there isn't necessarily any real reason for the rules, other than 'those are the rules and that is that'. Glad to see that you and Duchess are on the same 'page' (so to speak) in forum administration.

No, I am saying that the rules are obviously to stay away from fucking with or exposing people's private personal info, and linking to it is included. The rest is just you exaggerating, making up drama, making excuses, etc.

MF If I wanted to find you it would take me 10 minutes with the info you have posted about yourself in various places around the net.

The only limiting factor is a reason for me to do it.

well that and 2000 miles of who gives a shit between us.

Hmm? It is not about me, it's about the standard on the site. You are going to have to ask Duchess to defend it from this point forward if she cares to - I've explained it fully. It's her policy now.

(02-21-2010, 06:51 PM)Middle Finger Wrote: Hmm? It is not about me, it's about the standard on the site. You are going to have to ask Duchess to defend it from this point forward if she cares to - I've explained it fully. It's her policy now.

thats the problem MF, if the info was posted by you some place the rules make it exempt. Just as a point of order this part of the rule has not been explained, in fact its been avoided.



The exception is that you can post a link to any public website, or post any information they themselves have posted.

(02-22-2010, 08:55 AM)IMaDick Wrote:

(02-21-2010, 06:51 PM)Middle Finger Wrote: Hmm? It is not about me, it's about the standard on the site. You are going to have to ask Duchess to defend it from this point forward if she cares to - I've explained it fully. It's her policy now.

thats the problem MF, if the info was posted by you some place the rules make it exempt. Just as a point of order this part of the rule has not been explained, in fact its been avoided.



The exception is that you can post a link to any public website, or post any information they themselves have posted.

One small correction. His name appeared in the credits. But by being a "credited" crew member, he gives permission for such information to be PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. The ban for the last link Lumpy posted is illegitimate, and we all know it. Even more so under the rule Dick quoted. But even without that rule it shouldn't be a bannable offense, since Rank could have simply requested he NOT be credited for his part in what was linked to. So we come again to the fact that Lumpy is banned for RANK's mistake of not requesting privatization of his information.

More crying, more bullshit ... take the rules up with Duchess. I'm done explaining and defending, sorry.

(02-22-2010, 10:26 AM)D Wrote:

(02-22-2010, 08:55 AM)IMaDick Wrote:

(02-21-2010, 06:51 PM)Middle Finger Wrote: Hmm? It is not about me, it's about the standard on the site. You are going to have to ask Duchess to defend it from this point forward if she cares to - I've explained it fully. It's her policy now.

thats the problem MF, if the info was posted by you some place the rules make it exempt. Just as a point of order this part of the rule has not been explained, in fact its been avoided.



The exception is that you can post a link to any public website, or post any information they themselves have posted.

One small correction. His name appeared in the credits. But by being a "credited" crew member, he gives permission for such information to be PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. The ban for the last link Lumpy posted is illegitimate, and we all know it. Even more so under the rule Dick quoted. But even without that rule it shouldn't be a bannable offense, since Rank could have simply requested he NOT be credited for his part in what was linked to. So we come again to the fact that Lumpy is banned for RANK's mistake of not requesting privatization of his information.

Sorry the truth is no longer admissible as evidence in the Mock court of law, where Duchess is the judge and MF is the jury.