october 17

october 17 wrote:

loyal officer to kenzu

=/ thats unfortunate...

[quote="Kenzu"] =>
It has been announced that accusing new members to be Watermelon or someone else will be punished.[quote="Kenzu"]
I wanted simply to protect our forum from a Watermelon acount(another), and I figured she begun with a big LOL and replied to hoaxhaist(or whatever) maybe she'he is a Watermelon acount!
And it wasn't really accusing I was asking.

Kenzu wrote:

You earned it!

What was I thinking!?
Protecting this forum from a possible Watermelon acount, it will never happen again Sir.

[quote="CoolKidX"][quote="Kenzu"] =>
It has been announced that accusing new members to be Watermelon or someone else will be punished.

Kenzu wrote:

I wanted simply to protect our forum from a Watermelon acount(another), and I figured she begun with a big LOL and replied to hoaxhaist(or whatever) maybe she'he is a Watermelon acount!
And it wasn't really accusing I was asking.

Kenzu wrote:

You earned it!

What was I thinking!?
Protecting this forum from a possible Watermelon acount, it will never happen again Sir.

Possible watermelon account? CKX, you have the same commander I do.... if you haven't noticed. And we're to sign up with the SAME aderan name. I've been called kismet since 1995, back during quake (1) online game play. I've dueled a dozen people in game for my nick and earned it. I'd really appreciate people knocking it off and stop calling me "melon" and "watermelon." You want me off the site, that's pretty damned clear. Everyone equal? Hah, knew it was a pipe dream.

Just making sure you were not.

Zealot: "apathy is the word of the day here"

That means here, where I am; I was/am apathetic. Need I define apathy for you?

If you knew what was going on in my life, you'd understand why "apathy is the word of the day here." It's turning into the word of the month apparently.

kismet wrote:

Zealot: "apathy is the word of the day here"

That means here, where I am; I was/am apathetic. Need I define apathy for you?

Misunderstood given the context.

I think Zealot and Kismet should hook up.

How can one be apathetic yet wish to vote?

kismet wrote:

Zealot: "apathy is the word of the day here"

That means here, where I am; I was/am apathetic. Need I define apathy for you?

If you knew what was going on in my life, you'd understand why "apathy is the word of the day here." It's turning into the word of the month apparently.

Dosnt sound like you two get along...

Liche wrote:

I think Zealot and Kismet should hook up.

Trolling?

CoolKidX wrote:

Trolling?

Would seem like that, but, it's just Liche's character. He always tells me that I should hook up with any female I enegage with in some, at least seemingly, intense conversation.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

Trolling?

Would seem like that, but, it's just Liche's character. He always tells me that I should hook up with any female I enegage with in some, at least seemingly, intense conversation.

intense conversation? For me it's been fun, you're the reason I've stayed and posted 50+ posts

Don't blame Kenzu Zealot, this one is all on you babe

kismet wrote:

intense conversation? For me it's been fun, you're the reason I've stayed and posted 50+ posts

I'd be flattered if at least 50% of your posts hadn't been some sort of libel.

kismet wrote:

Don't blame Kenzu Zealot, this one is all on you babe

Who drops the seed is as guilty as the one who provides the water and manure.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

kismet wrote:

intense conversation? For me it's been fun, you're the reason I've stayed and posted 50+ posts

I'd be flattered if at least 50% of your posts hadn't been some sort of libel.

kismet wrote:

Don't blame Kenzu Zealot, this one is all on you babe

Who drops the seed is as guilty as the one who provides the water and manure.

Clever, but no. None of my posts have been libelous. Please post the ones that have been.

kismet wrote:

Clever, but no. None of my posts have been libelous. Please post the ones that have been.

With pleasure:

kismet wrote:

? You should be editing your own in this thread since you're replying to others such as you are to lower your post count as well... oh, but wait, you have more than enough to vote, you just don't want others voting.

You assert that I don't want others voting. This constitutes libel.

kismet wrote:

So you're telling me what to believe.

You're accusing me of coercing you. A false accusation that constitutes libel.

kismet wrote:

BC wrote:

kismet wrote:

I'd rather have someone who voices his change of heart than someone who is going to bully me into doing/thinking what he wants me to think.

And now i'm trying to coerce people? I think you're a little new to this forum to reach that conclusion, all things being considered.

I did not say you were trying to coerce. If you'd bothered to read before jumping to conclusions, you'd see who I was talking to. Instead, let's jump the gun and go on the offensive.

You're accusing BC of being a bully without proof.

kismet wrote:

No, I don't care for the way you speak to people, specifically this post. You have done this on other occasions... please check your thousands of posts, I'm sure you yourself will find other occasions where you've bullied/belittled/beaten into submission or the other person decided to quit posting because of attacks.

Failing to provide proof, you request BC to check for himself. When you make an accusation, the burden of bringing proof is yours not the defendant's.

And as BC put it:

BC wrote:

kismet wrote:

On BC, if you want specific quotes, read that thread. I'm not going to do all the work here when I have given sufficient proof.

... I don't need to re-read over again a thread which i myself posted in (i tend to read what i respond to). You, on the other hand, refuse to respond to my points, so i can only assume it's you not sufficiently reading. Also, if you think one thread, in which i merely responded to the OP's desire to keep the thread relevant, is sufficient proof of my belligerence, you have very low evidential standards, especially for someone so intelligent.

You failed to provide sufficient proof, you meerly dodged the discussion. Your accusation that BC is a bully was proven to be based on false premises. It's libel.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

kismet wrote:

Clever, but no. None of my posts have been libelous. Please post the ones that have been.

With pleasure:

kismet wrote:

? You should be editing your own in this thread since you're replying to others such as you are to lower your post count as well... oh, but wait, you have more than enough to vote, you just don't want others voting.

You assert that I don't want others voting. This constitutes libel.

kismet wrote:

So you're telling me what to believe.

You're accusing me of coercing you. A false accusation that constitutes libel.

kismet wrote:

BC wrote:

kismet wrote:

I'd rather have someone who voices his change of heart than someone who is going to bully me into doing/thinking what he wants me to think.

And now i'm trying to coerce people? I think you're a little new to this forum to reach that conclusion, all things being considered.

I did not say you were trying to coerce. If you'd bothered to read before jumping to conclusions, you'd see who I was talking to. Instead, let's jump the gun and go on the offensive.

You're accusing BC of being a bully without proof.

kismet wrote:

No, I don't care for the way you speak to people, specifically this post. You have done this on other occasions... please check your thousands of posts, I'm sure you yourself will find other occasions where you've bullied/belittled/beaten into submission or the other person decided to quit posting because of attacks.

Failing to provide proof, you request BC to check for himself. When you make an accusation, the burden of bringing proof is yours not the defendant's.

And as BC put it:

BC wrote:

kismet wrote:

On BC, if you want specific quotes, read that thread. I'm not going to do all the work here when I have given sufficient proof.

... I don't need to re-read over again a thread which i myself posted in (i tend to read what i respond to). You, on the other hand, refuse to respond to my points, so i can only assume it's you not sufficiently reading. Also, if you think one thread, in which i merely responded to the OP's desire to keep the thread relevant, is sufficient proof of my belligerence, you have very low evidential standards, especially for someone so intelligent.

You failed to provide sufficient proof, you meerly dodged the discussion. Your accusation that BC is a bully was proven to be based on false premises. It's libel.

So who have I libeled? You or BC? Your accusations of libel have been about you, not BC to this point. As far as you go, I have not said anything that could even remotely be considered libel. As far as that quote with BC and coercion, you were the one who combined posts... therefore making BC believe I was saying it to him. Had you not combined those posts, he very possibly would not have thought that particularly.

I don't dodge. You give me a headache.

kismet wrote:

So who have I libeled? You or BC? Your accusations of libel have been about you, not BC to this point.

Nope, I said your posts were libelous in general not necesarily just about me. And you started by saying BC was a bully.

kismet wrote:

As far as you go, I have not said anything that could even remotely be considered libel.

libel: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means

By stating that I edit your posts into expresing my views instead of yours, that BC and me are bullies that peer pressures others into thinking the same way we do and by stating that I'm sabotaging the election you're engaging in libel.

kismet wrote:

As far as that quote with BC and coercion, you were the one who combined posts... therefore making BC believe I was saying it to him. Had you not combined those posts, he very possibly would not have thought that particularly.

In that part I didn't combine the posts, again you're accusing me of something I didn't do.

He knew you were refering to him for this:

kismet wrote:

I'd rather have someone who voices his change of heart than someone who is going to bully me into doing/thinking what he wants me to think.

That is clearly a reference to both candidates, which of them do you prefer and why implying that BC bullies people into doing/thinnking what he wants.

kismet wrote:

I don't dodge. You give me a headache.

Maybe you get headaches because you don't know how to further advance your agenda with all evidence against you.

Get along you two..... >_>