Banned usernames

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I was trying to provide info about another member, but your point is probably correct

No, you provided disinformation.

 

I provided a correction.

 

You were dishonest, and continue to be.

 

The thread is still there.  I can provide receipts.

 

In that thread, I described the usage of the term by explaining that he was lawyering for pedophiles, and described the coining of the term.
 

I went on to say that I was certain that he himself was not a pedophile, and that there was exactly zero reason for anyone to believe he had those proclivities; and that accusing anyone of such a thing with no evidence is vile.

 

You’re simply biased, and were either willing to mischaracterize what I said to suit your biases, or allowed your biases to torture the English language to pervert my intent.

 

You should be ashamed of yourself, certainly for the suspension as I just honestly accounted, but more so for your attempt to defame me publicly.

 

But you won’t be, and that’s telling.
 

 

[SoTier]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, you provided disinformation.

 

I provided a correction.

 

You were dishonest, and continue to be.

 

The thread is still there.  I can provide receipts.

 

In that thread, I described the usage of the term by explaining that he was lawyering for pedophiles, and described the coining of the term.
 

I went on to say that I was certain that he himself was not a pedophile, and that there was exactly zero reason for anyone to believe he had those proclivities; and that accusing anyone of such a thing with no evidence is vile.

 

You’re simply biased, and were either willing to mischaracterize what I said to suit your biases, or allowed your biases to torture the English language to pervert my intent.

 

You should be ashamed of yourself, certainly for the suspension as I just honestly accounted, but more so for your attempt to defame me publicly.

 

But you won’t be, and that’s telling.
 

 

 

Another hour, another return from the ranks of the "I'm PO'd cuz I didn't get my way" fraternity.

[SectionC3]

7 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, you provided disinformation.

 

I provided a correction.

 

You were dishonest, and continue to be.

 

The thread is still there.  I can provide receipts.

 

In that thread, I described the usage of the term by explaining that he was lawyering for pedophiles, and described the coining of the term.
 

I went on to say that I was certain that he himself was not a pedophile, and that there was exactly zero reason for anyone to believe he had those proclivities; and that accusing anyone of such a thing with no evidence is vile.

 

You’re simply biased, and were either willing to mischaracterize what I said to suit your biases, or allowed your biases to torture the English language to pervert my intent.

 

You should be ashamed of yourself, certainly for the suspension as I just honestly accounted, but more so for your attempt to defame me publicly.

 

But you won’t be, and that’s telling.
 

 

What a crock of hoax.  There is no disinformation and, despite your best efforts to cast yourself as the victim in this inane dispute, the fact remains that you used what best could be described as a double entendre.  Instead of apologizing, you’ve defended your misconduct, whined about your purported victim hood, and absurdly accused somebody else of defaming you.   The chef’s kiss is that you have the temerity to accuse somebody else of dishonesty.  What a joke.   

[shoshin]

12 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You should be ashamed of yourself, certainly for the suspension as I just honestly accounted, but more so for your attempt to defame me publicly.

 

But you won’t be, and that’s telling.
 

 

 

I think we can all see you for who you are: A guy who tries to rally his buddies to "make it hurt" for SDS, personally. 

 

 

This is a message board on the internet. You're anonymous. He's not. And you made a threat, knowing what crap like this can do on the Internet.

 

If you were drunk and regret doing that, now is the time to say it.  

 

[Doc]

18 minutes ago, SoTier said:

Another hour, another return from the ranks of the "I'm PO'd cuz I didn't get my way" fraternity.

 

Hmmm, sounds familiar...

[Rob's House]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Incorrect, particularly when a possessive is in the mix.  And, given the gravity of the allegation, caution should have been exercised and unambiguous parlance should have been used. 

 

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

 

 

 

Classic backpedal trying to retroactively explain your behavior through symantics that don't exist.

Is "pedophile law" a specialty?

This is such a weak argument you're casting here. There is no such thing as a Burglar Lawyer, Rapist Lawyer, Murder Lawyer, Assault Lawyer.

It goes to show that neither of you, when proven 100% in the wrong, can ever concede the smallest of points.

You know you're completely wrong.

 

You guys must do a lot of yoga to be able to stretch that far.

 

While you are correct that one does not typically refer to sex crimes as pedophile law, any reasonable person with a functional understanding of the English language and a shred of common sense would clearly understand that phrase to refer to a lawyer who represents pedophiles and not a pedophile who is a lawyer.

 

It's really not a close call. 

 

Just for ***** and giggles I asked two lawyers what they thought the term "pedophile lawyer" referred to without giving them any backstory. Both, without hesitation, said lawyer who represents pedophiles as though the answer couldn't be more obvious.

 

This is just another example of you guys intentionally misrepresenting someone's words so as to feign indignation on the premise that their statement conveyed something other than its plain and obvious meaning. It's so typical.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

31 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

I think we can all see you for who you are: A guy who tries to rally his buddies to "make it hurt" for SDS, personally. 

 

 

This is a message board on the internet. You're anonymous. He's not. And you made a threat, knowing what crap like this can do on the Internet.

 

If you were drunk and regret doing that, now is the time to say it.  

 

No one disputes that this is private property, and Scott can do as he sees fit.  Scott’s stated goal was to facilitate a community for Bills fans.  His site encompasses all manner of things, because Bills fans have a wide variety of other passions and interests.  There is very little which cannot be talked about here by Bills fans.

 

However Scott drew a line in the sand.  He singled out a certain type of discussion which he does not wish to foster.  He used the phrases “4chan for Bills fans” and “The Donald for Bills Fans” in a derogatory manner, implying that is what PPP is.  This aligns very neatly with the dopey rhetoric from some of you (the Royal “you”), that this is an alt-right subforum, and that those of us who post here are racist, white-supremacist, etc.

 

The messaging, and the pattern of moderation, and suspensions is clear.  Conservative, libertarian, Republican etc. ideas are not particularly welcome here.
 

Scott, and his moderation team, have made the choice to alienate people who hold those ideas, and to hold them to a very different standard.

 

As such, those individuals being alienated should take strong note.  They should tell other Bills fans about how this place is moderated.  They should talk about it in conservative circles.  If Scott, and his moderators, have decided this is what they want, then they should be forced to own it.

 

Two Bills Drive is not a place for conservatives, and that should be public.

 

That’s the hurt I’m speaking of.

Edited October 6, 2020 by TakeYouToTasker

[Reality Check]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No one disputes that this is private property, and Scott can do as he sees fit.  Scott’s stated goal was to facilitate a community for Bills fans.  His site encompasses all manner of things, because Bills fans have a wide variety of other passions and interests.  There is very little which cannot be talked about here by Bills fans.

 

However Scott drew a line in the sand.  He singled out a certain type of discussion which he does not wish to foster.  He used the phrases “4chan for Bills fans” and “The Donald for Bills Fans” in a derogatory manner, implying that is what PPP is.  This aligns very neatly with the dopey rhetoric from some of you (the Royal “you”), that this is an alt-right subforum, and that those of us who post here are racist, white-supremacist, etc.

 

The messaging, and the pattern of moderation, and suspensions is clear.  Conservative, libertarian, Republican etc. ideas are not particularly welcome here.
 

Scott, and his meditation team, have made the choice to alienate people who hold those ideas, and to hold them to a very different standard.

 

As such, those individuals being alienated should take strong note.  They should tell other Bills fans about how this place is moderated.  They should talk about it in conservative circles.  If Scott, and his moderators, have decided this is what they want, then they should be forced to own it.

 

Two Bills Drive is not a place for conservatives, and that should be public.

 

That’s the hurt I’m speaking of.

True story.☠️

[section122]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

There shouldn't be moderation of PPP.  If you don't like something that is said, leave or put the user on ignore.  

 

Terrible idea.  There is no discussion when there is only mudslinging.  The amount of name calling on this sub forum should be embarrassing for any adult.  Discussion should be just that, discussion.  Name calling has no place.  If people spoke on here like they would if they were speaking face to face, DR would still be here.  Honestly MORE moderation would make this place better.

 

On 10/5/2020 at 11:03 AM, Rob's House said:

I appreciate you allowing this forum to exist as it has. It's one of the few remaining places on the internet where frank and open discourse is still allowed and has a good core of knowledgeable posters who, in my estimation, have made it something special.

 

Sure.  As long as you vote Republican and dismiss any other view point as marxist, communist, libtard, snowflake, etc...

 

What has happened (imo) is there have been an influx of left leaning posters coming on to the site now.  This has caused an issue because the echo chamber no longer echoes quite as much.  Look at how quick things devolve into name calling.  I won't absolve either side of the political aisle and say this is only one side or the other but it is a problem on this forum and many times makes it unreadable.  People should handle themselves like adults and try to be better.  We are still all American at the end of the day but somehow on this site having a different pov means you literally are against America and everything it stands for .

 

I had several good interactions with DR but also cringed with his treatment of others beyond just "trolls" or "bots" (yet another way to undermine others opinions).  He shouldn't have broken TOS plain and simple.  He should have heeded the warning he received.  He should have not gotten into it with the site owner.  3 chances to not get banned.   3 strikes and you are out.

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Scott, and his moderation team, have made the choice to alienate people who hold those ideas, and to hold them to a very different standard.

 

As such, those individuals being alienated should take strong note.  They should tell other Bills fans about how this place is moderated.  They should talk about it in conservative circles.  If Scott, and his moderators, have decided this is what they want, then they should be forced to own it.

 

Two Bills Drive is not a place for conservatives, and that should be public.

 

That’s the hurt I’m speaking of.

 

Are you serious?  How long has this forum existed?  How long has PPP existed?  How long did the qanon thread exist?  How about all of the incredibly long threads?

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No one disputes that this is private property, and Scott can do as he sees fit.  Scott’s stated goal was to facilitate a community for Bills fans.  His site encompasses all manner of things, because Bills fans have a wide variety of other passions and interests.  There is very little which cannot be talked about here by Bills fans.

 

However Scott drew a line in the sand.  He singled out a certain type of discussion which he does not wish to foster.  He used the phrases “4chan for Bills fans” and “The Donald for Bills Fans” in a derogatory manner, implying that is what PPP is.  This aligns very neatly with the dopey rhetoric from some of you (the Royal “you”), that this is an alt-right subforum, and that those of us who post here are racist, white-supremacist, etc.

 

The messaging, and the pattern of moderation, and suspensions is clear.  Conservative, libertarian, Republican etc. ideas are not particularly welcome here.
 

Scott, and his moderation team, have made the choice to alienate people who hold those ideas, and to hold them to a very different standard.

 

As such, those individuals being alienated should take strong note.  They should tell other Bills fans about how this place is moderated.  They should talk about it in conservative circles.  If Scott, and his moderators, have decided this is what they want, then they should be forced to own it.

 

Two Bills Drive is not a place for conservatives, and that should be public.

 

That’s the hurt I’m speaking of.

 

Scott called me a racist for saying something pro-Trump or anti-liberal in the Shoutbox, which has become the de facto liberal PPP (I suspect that they got together and decided to invade here and that's why we've seen all this activity).  It's the default for many of them.

 

1 hour ago, section122 said:

Terrible idea.  There is no discussion when there is only mudslinging.  The amount of name calling on this sub forum should be embarrassing for any adult.  Discussion should be just that, discussion.  Name calling has no place.  If people spoke on here like they would if they were speaking face to face, DR would still be here.  Honestly MORE moderation would make this place better.

 

Again don't engage with the mudslingers.  And certainly don't sling it yourself if you're not prepared to have it slung right back at you.  To portray DR as the only one making ad hominen attacks is disingenuous at best and a bald-faced lie at worst.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Doc

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, SoTier said:

 

Read the WTF thread.  Read this thread.   Concentrate on the posts from SDS and the numerous denials that DR did anything remotely against the rules.  Check on TYTT's post in the WTF thread asking other posts to retaliate against SDS.   The DR defenders have created their very own conspiracy theory that SDS and the mods are banning members because they don't like their political views.   

 

PPP is part of a private MB site.  It has rules set by the owner.   If you (generic) don't follow the rules and get penalized for that, take your medicine like an adult and move on.  If your cyber BFF/soulmate/hero/god figure gets permanently banned because he refuses to obey the rules there's nothing you can do.  If you don't like it, then don't post in PPP or leave the entire site. 

 

Again, project much?

[section122]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

Again don't engage with the mudslingers.  And certainly don't sling it yourself if you're not prepared to have it slung right back at you.  To portray DR as the only one making ad hominen attacks is disingenuous at best and a bald-faced lie at worst.

 

I'm not portraying that at all. 

 

I'm saying there should be no mud slinging period.  It shouldn't be tolerated period.

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, you provided disinformation.

 

I provided a correction.

 

You were dishonest, and continue to be.

 

The thread is still there.  I can provide receipts.

 

In that thread, I described the usage of the term by explaining that he was lawyering for pedophiles, and described the coining of the term.
 

I went on to say that I was certain that he himself was not a pedophile, and that there was exactly zero reason for anyone to believe he had those proclivities; and that accusing anyone of such a thing with no evidence is vile.

 

You’re simply biased, and were either willing to mischaracterize what I said to suit your biases, or allowed your biases to torture the English language to pervert my intent.

 

You should be ashamed of yourself, certainly for the suspension as I just honestly accounted, but more so for your attempt to defame me publicly.

 

But you won’t be, and that’s telling.
 

 

Bye??? 🤥

 

 

[BullBuchanan]

40 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No one disputes that this is private property, and Scott can do as he sees fit.  Scott’s stated goal was to facilitate a community for Bills fans.  His site encompasses all manner of things, because Bills fans have a wide variety of other passions and interests.  There is very little which cannot be talked about here by Bills fans.

 

However Scott drew a line in the sand.  He singled out a certain type of discussion which he does not wish to foster.  He used the phrases “4chan for Bills fans” and “The Donald for Bills Fans” in a derogatory manner, implying that is what PPP is.  This aligns very neatly with the dopey rhetoric from some of you (the Royal “you”), that this is an alt-right subforum, and that those of us who post here are racist, white-supremacist, etc.

 

The messaging, and the pattern of moderation, and suspensions is clear.  Conservative, libertarian, Republican etc. ideas are not particularly welcome here.
 

Scott, and his moderation team, have made the choice to alienate people who hold those ideas, and to hold them to a very different standard.

 

As such, those individuals being alienated should take strong note.  They should tell other Bills fans about how this place is moderated.  They should talk about it in conservative circles.  If Scott, and his moderators, have decided this is what they want, then they should be forced to own it.

 

Two Bills Drive is not a place for conservatives, and that should be public.

 

That’s the hurt I’m speaking of.

You mean it's not the place where you can post your love of the most far right genocidal dictators with zero repercussions with nothing but applause from the regulars of the board? You could've fooled me and the 4-5 other people on this board that aren't aligned with the alt-right.

[BullBuchanan]

50 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

 

You guys must do a lot of yoga to be able to stretch that far.

 

While you are correct that one does not typically refer to sex crimes as pedophile law, any reasonable person with a functional understanding of the English language and a shred of common sense would clearly understand that phrase to refer to a lawyer who represents pedophiles and not a pedophile who is a lawyer.

 

It's really not a close call. 

 

Just for ***** and giggles I asked two lawyers what they thought the term "pedophile lawyer" referred to without giving them any backstory. Both, without hesitation, said lawyer who represents pedophiles as though the answer couldn't be more obvious.

 

This is just another example of you guys intentionally misrepresenting someone's words so as to feign indignation on the premise that their statement conveyed something other than its plain and obvious meaning. It's so typical.

 

Again you lie, and try to backpedal your way out of your mess.
 

I have a relatively high understanding of the English language, as as such I know how adjectives work. Lawyers are referred to by specialty - Contract, Law, Divorce, Criminal, Injury, Real Estate, Malpractice, etc. They are never referred to by specific crimes. Even the tense used suggests you are lying. if you really wanted to create a class of lawyer that specifically represents pedophiles, the correct term (that still doesn't exist) would be "Pedophilia Lawyer".

Instead, the tense suggests an adjective, like "Arsonist Lawyer"  would.

Stop lying. You've been caught.

[shoshin]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No one disputes that this is private property, and Scott can do as he sees fit.  Scott’s stated goal was to facilitate a community for Bills fans.  His site encompasses all manner of things, because Bills fans have a wide variety of other passions and interests.  There is very little which cannot be talked about here by Bills fans.

 

However Scott drew a line in the sand.  He singled out a certain type of discussion which he does not wish to foster.  He used the phrases “4chan for Bills fans” and “The Donald for Bills Fans” in a derogatory manner, implying that is what PPP is.  This aligns very neatly with the dopey rhetoric from some of you (the Royal “you”), that this is an alt-right subforum, and that those of us who post here are racist, white-supremacist, etc.

 

The messaging, and the pattern of moderation, and suspensions is clear.  Conservative, libertarian, Republican etc. ideas are not particularly welcome here.
 

Scott, and his moderation team, have made the choice to alienate people who hold those ideas, and to hold them to a very different standard.

 

As such, those individuals being alienated should take strong note.  They should tell other Bills fans about how this place is moderated.  They should talk about it in conservative circles.  If Scott, and his moderators, have decided this is what they want, then they should be forced to own it.

 

Two Bills Drive is not a place for conservatives, and that should be public.

 

That’s the hurt I’m speaking of.

 

Substantively, this misses the point that the Q thread has never been moderated, as SDS stated, and nor have many others. SDS is a human with an opinion, which he shared and he did that to show how little moderation he does here, not as a precursor to banning DR. DR (and others on the LEFT in the Billstime mode) got themselves banned for their behavior, not their politics.

 

It also does not answer my question.

 

You advocated that people should "Make this hurt for [SDS]" and made this about him "personally." 

 

That's pretty sick and you should probably take your own advice and quit here if you can. 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by shoshin

[WEATHER DOT COM]

7 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

Substantively, this misses the point that the Q thread has never been moderated, as SDS stated, and nor have many others.

 

Actually, I was banned for a week for posting the letter "Q" consecutively in a sngle post in the QANON thread. Did I complain about it in thread after thread? No. Don't think I have brought it up until now...

[shoshin]

1 minute ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

Actually, I was banned for a week for posting the letter "Q" consecutively in a sngle post in the QANON thread. Did I complain about it in thread after thread? No. Don't think I have brought it up until now...

 

What you did was not content related. You were just being a zero-add poster. 

[WEATHER DOT COM]

1 minute ago, shoshin said:

 

What you did was not content related. You were just being a zero-add poster. 

 

Indeed.

 

"Even in the cesspool of PPP, this isn't acceptable posting" I was told.

 

I could have easily compared it to the thousand other wild things said here, but I took my lump and moved on.

[TakeYouToTasker]

34 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

Substantively, this misses the point that the Q thread has never been moderated, as SDS stated, and nor have many others. SDS is a human with an opinion, which he shared and he did that to show how little moderation he does here, not as a precursor to banning DR. DR (and others on the LEFT in the Billstime mode) got themselves banned for their behavior, not their politics.

 

It also does not answer my question.

 

You advocated that people should "Make this hurt for [SDS]" and made this about him "personally." 

 

That's pretty sick and you should probably take your own advice and quit here if you can. 

 

 

He’s the owner of the site, and the sole individual responsible for policies and decisions which have targeted conservatives and their view points.  He is the sole proprietor.  Of course it’s about him personally.  He personally made the decisions.

 

Conservatives should let people know exactly  how Scott runs his business.