Messages to the Outside World

"Making the rules up as you go at the beginning of the week is not a problem, because it encourages competition. Making them up 10 minutes before you enforce them is just plain dumb."

Jim states very clearly the problem with the game. Changing the rules to suit a decision that has already been made is about the most pathetic thing any game leader could possibly do. It's dishonest, lazy, and illustrative of lameness. Anyone in this house who denies that changing the rules 10 minutes prior to applying them in an eviction isn't being honest with him- or herself. You're instead accepting whatever advantage you believe you may get from having an extra housemate dismissed. You certianly aren't analyzing the effect that has on the legitimacy of the game, nor are you considering the possibility that you could be next. Without well-defined rules, a game isn't a game. It's an exercise in futility subject to the whims of someone without concern for your own enjoyment, honesty, or a sense of fairness. The fact that the rest of you aren't outraged by this clear ineptitude on the part of Dashy exposes your own selfishness and win-at-all-costs mentality. It certainly doesn't reflect very positively on your character.

AYBABTU

 

Last week was a train wreck. Transitioning hosts was bound to cause problems, and like all things on these boards, Murphy's Law was in full effect. The right thing to do would to would be to put Jim back into the game. Farrie got the boot and Eagle hasn't been on for 2 weeks, so whether he got kicked out now or next week isn't worth discussing, imho. Maybe they were hoping to spice things up with the drama, I dunno, probably "fairer" ways of doing that.

You won't get outrage out of me though, it's just a game, on a message board no less. The sun will still rise and I'll still have crap filled diapers to change when I get home, whether I'm next week's evicted or the super cool title & colors bearing winner (though the terms of the sale of my soul should indicate the latter).

 

When you post in this thread? Do you ever feel like your trapped in Comms again arguing with Comet or some younger poster who lacks experience and knowledge? Except your arguing with someone who actually has experience and knowledge so kind of makes it a dead heat.

~PK~

 

PuccaKenobi blathered: Under his Administration this country has lost the respect of our allies and unemployment is at an all time high.

All-time high, eh?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*breath*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Spoken like someone who hasn't really bothered to look up the truth, but instead chose to make something up to support her own personal ideology. Kerry deserves your vote. I would hate to win anything knowing that you were the sort of support I had. I'd be embarrassed if I were you, Pucca. As it is, I'm just embarrassed for you.

AYBABTU

 

If Pucca is refereing to France who cares! This is my response to France, They can bite me. The truth is they didn't want use to go into Iraq because they had their hands there getting oil for food and other things. I don't want the UN deciding things for me. The UN is a corrupt place and has no business deciding what is right for America.

Also from last nights Debates Edwards kept saying that He and Kerry would take the Offensive on the War on Terror but the thing is they want us to withdrawl and let others decide for us. Another flip issue Kerry said he wanted the US to go one on one with Korea and leave everyone else out of the talks. But Edwards last night says that he and Kerry would let the UN go in and inspect things and decide things for us. While the truth of the matter is especially in Iraq those Inspectors were told where they can and can't go, they had been attempting to get Iraq to follow these resolutions for 13 years! What makes Kerry and Edwards think that Saddam would of changed his mind in the last 13 years one day!

Another thing on this whole issue of terror, which my father pointed this out to me, as long as we are there fighting them. They are way to preoccupied to plan attacks against us and attack here. And if no one can't see that then they're blind and should not be driving and giving a seeing eye dog. This is a new war and this is something we had to do. If we didn't do that then we were leaving ourselves openning to attacks from who knows where and who knows who. I would rather we take the fight to them then them bring the fight ot us.

~PK~

 

B, you're trying way too hard in that debate thread. If Pucca and Guinistasia had the capacity to read and discern truth, they wouldn't have made the baseless assertions in the first place. What makes you think they'll understand something that you say when they didn't understand it in any of the dozens of other places the information is available?

AYBABTU

 

PuccaKenobi blathered: "Under his Administration this country has lost the respect of our allies and unemployment is at an all time high."

Pucca I would suggest that you look up the Hoover Administration and the early years of FDR.

-Seldon

 

d'oh...nevermind

 

ATTN: this thread - many October birthday folk were conceived on New Year's Eve. I believe the 4th or the 5th is the most common birthday for this very reason.

 

Tracy just so you know I was just suggestion to Seldon that he should maybe make one the next time around if he didn't like the currant one.

~PK~

 

Tracy I'm not really against the artist. I'm against the idea that Site Leadership proposed in comms. I think it would be much better to make a banner for the entire saga. Rather than an EU one. I'm a fan of the novels, however the good of the novels is found in the writing and not the illustration. That is my opinion. Lucas is a visual man whose films are really works of art. It is my opinion that the main site banner never fully displays this. The last one was dull and the one before it was too happy and jovial. This is one is just illustrations. I'm not bashing the artists, they are far more talented then I. All I'm saying is they need a good topic.

-Seldon

 

From the thread: JC user xie arrested for third-degree grand larceny
Can't say I'm shocked. Smart kid, hope this scares his head out of the gutter.

He'll have plenty of time to think about what he's done. Maybe they'll decide to make an example of him.

Though I saw something like this coming with xie or one of the other two bit hackers at the Base, it makes me really question the character of those that would still choose to associate themselves with the place.

I don't expect he'll be the last one of them to end up standing before a judge.

 

strilo said in the "xie's probably going to jail" thread:

Mistake = error in judgement.

Good Lord, strilo. An error in judgement is hanging out with a bad kid. If he is convicted, what he did would be willing, knowingly committing a felony. I mean, it's hard to use forged or stolen credit cards and not realize that you're breaking the law in a big way.

That kind of logic explains a lot of your questionable decisions around the JC.

Also, Tracy said:
Whether you sympathize or not, Xie is still a member of this community.

Any flames will not be tolerated and will result in bans.

I think you should stay away from that thread if you can't control your emotions about your friend. If you feel people are flaming you would be best served to get another mod who see's xie for what he is (and has always been) to watch that thread.


And finally, Protege-of-Thrawn said:
This in no way defines who Xie is or the sort of person he is.

Then what exactly does? If attempting a felony does not give you a HUGE hint as to a person's character, I have no idea what does -- unless it's a Latin catchphrase.


This is one small blot on the record of an otherwise great kid, with his head screwed on relatively straight, and a lot to offer the world.

Like what? Free hosting? A good off-color joke every now and then?

 

It is remarkable to me that everyone has now declared the article a lie in violation of the TOS based only on the testimony of the accused. Guess what. Manson says he's innocent too. Is it then a violation of the TOS for me to call Manson a murderer? The simple fact is that no one has any reason to believe the article false beyond what xie has told you, and since he may be the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation, he isn't exactly what anyone with a reasonable capacity for honest analysis would call a credible source. How come the media are only infallible when they say something that you want to hear?

Some of you people amaze me.

AYBABTU

 

I'm not finished. Many of you people have declared the accusation to be false based solely on what xie has told you. Seriously? Can you please think about that for just a second?

Kudos to Sapient and KnightWriter and BobTheGoon for trying to point that out.

AYBABTU

 

xie's protestation reminds me of Jerome Heckenkamp's. You know, the 1337 hacker and security expert who somehow was stupid enough to let some other dude break into his system then hack into ebay, AOL and a couple of other big names. Only problem was, after all his denials he turned out to be guilty.

 

I'm gald the mods reopenned the thread. I would hate for people to think that the mods play favorites.

~PK~

 

LeeKenobi said -- "According to xie, whom I'd think to be the most trustworthy in this instance, YES - he did talk to a person, who may or may not have been a Russian male.

But also NO - He didn't commit credit card fraud. From what xie says, this guy did it and used him as a scapegoat."

Listen, I don't know whether xie is guilty or innocent, but that kind of post owns me. Scrutiny? To hell with it!

And if I were xie's lawyer, I'd take internet access away. It would be hilarious if he ends up implicating himself further thanks to cross-examination from the JC.

AYBABTU

 

I agree that the thread in the JCC is humiliation against Xie. That it is public information. While I agree that the thread has no positive purpose...Xie should have really thought about this before he did it. It is not like he was caught stealing a candy bar out of a store. This was a major offense and the JC should not be out to protect users from the truth about them. It happened, whether it is locked or not Xie should have thought about all of this before doing it.

-Seldon

 

gwaernardel brings up a good point. if you can't post someone's picture without their permission, you shouldn't be able to post about their lives without their permission. how is it fair for one to be bannable and the other acceptable?

dammit - wish i could post in comms.

 

http://boards.theforce.net/Communications/b10006/13833950/?99

It has been policy here for a very long time that you should not post photos of other members publically without their express permission. For some reason a sector of the community thinks photos of Mods are somehow exempt from this rule and are fair-game. This is actually not the case.

So please remember to show some common courtesy when posting pictures of other members, and make sure you have that person's permission to do so.

My promotion announcement week, no less

 

Once you hit the police blotter, you've pretty much ceded your rights to privacy. Posting a picture that is meant to be private in a public forum is completely different from posting a link to a publically available news story.

 

I agree with Jim on that.

Also this person has now entered the media. They can hardly be considered famous but they are still featured in the news. I am allowed to post a picture of George Lucas or John Kerry. Even if they were members of this site I could post a picture of them. This person is now in the news and really anything goes.

-Seldon

 

Why I'd Love to See Fare_Lenore in the Princess Leia Slave Girl Outfit.....

I'm assuming the answer to that thread title is that she seems trampy enough not to remain in it very long.

 

Knightwriter said:
Jim: You may or may not agree with homosexuality in general, but it is not an anti-social behavior.

Definition: antisocial
1)averse to the society of others
2)hostile or harmful to organized society; especially : being or marked by behavior deviating sharply from the social norm


I would consider less than 3% of society as deviating sharply from the social norm.