Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

Meowth, do you think your antagonism is justified?

Once again, Meowth, a non-response-response. This isn't a topic specifically for you to explain your problems with me, you're not one of this crowd, but what you're doing is very similar to the way these people talk around whatever problems they have with Vero and I.

My praise of you (for public statement of a problem) still stands.

Seppucrow, on 24 March 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

Not all the time, but I normally apologize when it is not. I don't give people dumb titles and just pretend to be right.

SuitCase, on 24 March 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

Suit, I don't understand what it is you want from them. I just told you the problem. I have the same problem with you as they all do. Explaining themselves won't make a difference, and they know it.

Can I try to explain a little.

No one hates you, as far as I know. But on occasion someone has a complaint about a person. So they do what any normal person would do, they complain. No one actually "talks shit" they would probably say things like "Oh he was being insensitive here" or "She was being a little whiny there".

I think a few people who are branded the "bad recess people" ( I should know I am one of them) Just feel as though sometimes the Social Studies people could be a little more understanding of us nitwits sometimes. We all play around and act silly in recess, but that's what it's for right?

I think this thread is a little cruel no matter what happened and I think all the people explaining the situation have done enough and we should let it slide and turn recess back into a fun place for kickball and stuff.

As a side note, I mean I go into the IRC drunk all the time...half the time I have no idea what I am saying, hell i'm surprised there is not a "What will Drunk Fighter say next?" Thread.

She did say sorry like you asked though, so are we done?

(small edit, switched "Let me" to Can I")

This post has been edited by Lvl 50 Fighter: 24 March 2012 - 06:31 PM

Chris, on 24 March 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

edited and finished, sorry for the wait, had a lot to say.

2010 Burger Chat
2011 Random Chat
2012 Basket Chat

Looks like it's that time of the year again.

Edit: Let me elaborate so this doesn't come off as a shitpost. I think there's a pattern of behavior here. Admittedly, I don't know shit about the first instance but it was still something influenced by the alienation of forum members into a private clique. It's just an observation. I don't know and don't care. It's none of my business, but felt it deserved mention at least.

Meowth, on 24 March 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

This is a dead end. If you can blindly assert "well whatever anyone says you won't listen!!" then what am I meant to do if I feel like I'm asking simple, rational questions? Stop listening to you, I suppose. So I shall.

Let's try again, in case everyone forgot:

SuitCase, on 24 March 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

SuitCase, on 24 March 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

Maybe it does seem a bit unfair, but I'm not the one who backed himself into a corner. The fact is you don't listen; and if you do, you don't care.

Also, I find it a bit hypocritical you would call me out on this, since you've done similar many times before. You love to use things such as "bias," "passive-aggressive," and "saving-face" to dispel arguments. With just the right connotation, you actually appear convincing for a few seconds.

What do you mean? I'm convincing because I'm usually correct and convey my ideas effectively. Say what you will about me "not listening" but if I make an argument, I always try to defend it when challenged.

It's been my experience with you that you're quick to give up on a challenge and will instead just wander away muttering about how unfair I am or whatever. Which means that even if my argument was weak, I never had to reconsider it.

SuitCase, on 24 March 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

It's been my experience with you that you are usually not correct, you just act like you are. I've shut you down in arguments multiple times but you always maintain this aura of being right. No matter how shifty, irrelevant, wrong, rude, bias, or hypocritical you act, you are always right. Always.

You say I backed you into a dead end; well, news flash, that was already impossible, because it doesn't matter what I say or what point I make; to you: I will be wrong.

But yes, you do always try to defend yourself, but that doesn't mean you're right. Did you ever stop to think that MAYBE giving a title about someones dead girlfriend was a bad idea? Did you ever think that just because people feel differently then you do on a matter, they're not completely moronic? Did it ever cross your mind on even one occasion, that just maybe, without Tae pushing you to do it, you should apologize for your clear and outward negative behavior towards virtually everybody on this forum? And most relevant of all, do you even believe yourself capable of being wrong about something that isn't hard science? Have you ever stopped to think that MAYBE you were mistaken. That "dumb internet" people aren't all (or at the very least, always) dumb? Or maybe you can be one those people on occasion?

It would be wonderful if you could back up your pitifully high amount of egotism with just a little bit of humility.

SuitCase, on 24 March 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

I think I've argued enough on this forum for people to know that I do love a good challenge, but I'm not an idiot. Of course I walk away from some. Are you gonna tell me you haven't responded to something you didn't agree with, and eventually realized there was no reason to even debate it? Sometimes I tire of the discussion or lose confidence in it, so I leave. Sometimes I can see it is coming down to semantics and perspective, so I don't want to wade through all that tedious shit.

And there have been many times I've challenged you; is your last sentence implying their hasn't been? I think my title proves otherwise.

Somebody's got a fair amount of butthurt going on, here. On the flipside, you're getting a partial explanation as to this "undercurrent", Suit.

And to be honest, Meowth, if you feel like Suit's got this air of constant correctness, maybe it's because he is right, a majority of the time that you butt heads. The thing is, Meowth, you're hating on Suit for having traits that are actually pretty admirable, even if they're as misguided as hell. Like you, I do think Suit can be overly smug and overly harsh sometimes, but I don't see you asking anyone else to justify or apologise for their actions.

You don't ask me, or Susan, or Sam, or LackLuster, or Snooths, or anybody else who prefer and enjoy to pull no punches.

I guess you could try taking into account the fact that in a lot of circles and cliques Suitcase isn't all that popular, so when people are mouthing off about him and his wife, people that might call themselves fans, I think he doesn't need any more justification than to rip away somebody's cover and ask them to stop cowering and start explaining.

And as for the faggot with the dead girlfriend, no need to bring that up. That was all done and dusted a long while ago. I notice you're asking all these uncomfortable questions that I bet Taeshi's already grilled Suit with and seeing as Suit isn't one of those dumb, socially-maladjusted fuckwits like Soul or DMLD, he's probably already reviewed his behaviour.

Whether or not that changes is his perogative, whining about the fact it's his choice is pretty presumptuous and also kind of hypocritical.

SushiJaguar, on 24 March 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

You're right. It is possible that majority of the time he has been "correct." I can't disprove that. I would say it is up for the individual to decide, but as far as I'm concerned, he hasn't been.

These amiable traits, are, as you said, misguided. End of story. That statement was self-defeating.

I deal with individual people in individual ways. I've had it out with Sue and Snooths many times, and typically, I focus on different things. I've never asked them for an apology because, quite frankly, it never seemed relevant. I normally talk directly to them about being asses. Also, the apology was more about humility. I would have no reason to tell Snooths to be more humble; and with Sue, well, there are obviously some more important things for her to start with. As for Sam and Lack, I've never really had much a reason to really get into it with them. I guess Sam posts some rough things in creative arts sometimes. Okay? Yeah, sometimes people are mean, but overall, Sammy isn't that bad. As for Lack, yeah, he has said some mean things too. Same explanation for Sam. And as for you, it is like Susan. Why even bother?

If you want to get right down to it, Suit isn't an idiot, but I feel the way he carries himself and the way he acts makes him out to seem like one.

And you're right, he does have a right to have people explain things to him, or at least he did. My problem is that he doesn't listen, and if he does, he doesn't care. It is not criticism to him, it is just a fight. These cliques exists for a reason, too. People don't just hate Suit for sport.

Reviewed his behavior? My problem is that it doesn't show. As far as I'm concerned, he is the same person. The same person who will never admit to being wrong. The same person who will never apologize. The same person who will be a bitter hypocrite. And the same person who takes confidence to the point of stubbornness.

In what way is me arguing about his behavior "presumptuous and also kind of hypocritical"? I'm completely entitled to say these things. Just as entitled as he is to say the things he does.

This post has been edited by Meowth: 24 March 2012 - 08:26 PM

I just think it's fairly presumptuous to use a guy's own website that he built to cuss him out for what's really amounting to you being unable to bottle up your contempt. I could be a prick and say you're just butthurt 'cause he doesn't rave-rate your stories, but I know you just have a problem with him.

To be honest, I don't agree with what you say. He doesn't come across as an idiot by the way he acts, just self-superior. That's not good, but that's not terrible either. His right to have people not cower away and whisper amongst themselves like preteen schoolgirls isn't invalidated by how he behaves. And if you're going to say Susan and I can't be critised or made to apologise because of whatever issue, then how come Suit can? Guy's had his fair share to deal with. (I mean come on he's married to Taeshi J/K)

And if you wanna know why I think you're being hypocritical, read your post from the perspective of someone who observes the same traits you're fed up with in you as well as Suit.

I just don't think you can fault somebody for behaving the way they've been treated. Harsh shunning, ridicule, exclusion based on prejudice, I'm sure you'd get that were you to walk up to a girl and say "well shit I find the imminent need to piss positively orgasmic".

You've already called him out for being butthurt, you might want to edit that.
(Though I find it refreshing to see an actual argument here, rather than the usual "who can come up with best insult?" crap I've seen on this thread.)

Meowth said:

Finally, someone has articulated specific problems they have with SuitCase. The two above in particular I would agree with.

Sure, Mettlebird kept going on about his dead girlfriend and reacting badly to people poking him about it. However, it was obvious that his feelings for his girlfriend were genuine, and I personally thought the title SuitCase gave him ("Jesus is fucking my girlfriend up in heaven") was in very poor taste and unwarranted. I would've hoped SuitCase would have more consideration for someone's feelings than that, and I can't say I was unhappy when Taeshi made him take down the title.

BasketCase is certainly guilty of overreacting at times, but I feel the same thing can be said of Taeshi too. For example, she banned Mettlebird for something he'd done five months previously. Absolutely Mettlebird shouldn't have made personal attacks or spread shit to a different board, and Taeshi is certainly entitled to think poorly of him for that. However, I also feel Mettlebird was just your average emotional teenager who made the bad impulse decision of venting his immediate emotions on a different board. The Housepets mods rightfully locked the thread less than eight hours after he posted it. So while Taeshi is justified to think badly of Mettlebird, is she right in banning him for an emotional decision he'd made months ago? Is it at all possible that Mettlebird might have changed his attitude since then? Could he have been given more time to demonstrate that?

I also feel that both SuitCase and Taeshi are often unnecessarily disparaging to people, especially calling them names. I'm thinking specifically of what happened with Starwatcher. For example, SuitCase referred to him as part of the "Christian Brigade". I think such names, even if given in jest, can offend others or hurt their feelings (Starwatcher is not religious at all). Taeshi also called Starwatcher ignorant (or something along those lines) because of his opinions. Personally, I don't think Starwatcher is ignorant at all; he comes across to me as being intelligent and a person who considers things. Now maybe Taeshi (and SuitCase?) think Starwatcher's opinions are idiotic, but that could be expressed more gently, and without resorting to ad hominems. Maybe they think they're just being blunt about their feelings, and Starwatcher should grow some thicker skin, though in that same vein, I could just as well say that maybe people should be nicer and not resort to name-calling or putting down people. I think it's good to have some consideration for others.

These are the issues I have with SuitCase and Taeshi at present. I realize I'm not the one this thread is aimed at, but I feel I should follow the example of identifying specific concerns and explaining my rationale for them. If people among the Recess Skype group also have such concerns with SuitCase and Taeshi, I would encourage them to respectfully submit them in this thread along with supporting examples. Maybe people can come to a better understanding as a result, maybe not, but at least everyone will know what the specific issues are.

Usually I just avoid these shitstorms, as I don't like getting involved in drama. But this is exactly the reason why a lot of people don't speak up when there are problems: they don’t want to stir the pot and cause drama that quickly gets blown out of all proportion. I can definitely understand that sort of thinking, because I'm not a very confrontational person myself. I do think the anonymous Formspring poster who sparked all of this should bear some of the blame for inciting drama. And yes, SuitCase, I wish you'd stated your intentions for this thread right from the beginning, because that would've made things clearer and avoided unnecessary posts.

SushiJaguar, on 24 March 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

Unable to bottle up my contempt? I'm not trying to bottle up my contempt. Why would I bother? I'm just telling it how it is.

But thank you for at least realizing this isn't about my story.

SushiJaguar, on 24 March 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

Well, that much is fine with me. Whether or not we agree or disagree on the term to describe the problem at hand, we can agree there is at least a problem. And whether or not you feel the same way I, and many other people do about Suitcase doesn't change much either.

I, however, do think that his behavior "invalidates" his "right" to not be talked about behind his back. Gossip and shit-talking are usually unpreventable things. There will always be someone who doesn't enjoy the person you are, whether it is fake or real. Of course, no one deserves it until they do something which warrants the behavior. Suitcase, as I explained before, does not listen. People are angry at him. So they vent about him. They whine about him. They bitch about him. Doesn't really matter what you call it, since it is all the same in the end anyway. Are they supposed to confront him? Maybe if you disagree with me it is no big deal, but if you are me, or one of these other people whom -- right or wrong -- believes he does not listen, it is a little more useless.

You know, has anyway ever stopped to think that even with a superior stance, stopping to argue with a guy who is studying to be a lawyer might be just a little difficult for some people? It isn't like he will sit there and have a nice, good-hearted conversation with them. He has shown before that he will use every trick in the big to put someone down, whether or not it is relevant to the argument.

Why do I expect Suit to apologize, but don't proposition the same from you and Sue? Frankly, I hold Suit to a higher regard. He is a generally smart guy who has a bad habit of being a stubborn, hypocritical asshole. You and Sue are that times 10. Right now, yes, I'm not minding this argument with you, but sometimes it is just soul-crushing. When Suit mentioned that I am weak and won't take a challenge, that I will walk away from an argument, I'm sure he was in part referring to times I've given up on you both. Circular logic, pride to the point of fallacy and stubbornness... it is unbearable.

I should also point out this is about more than one, half-hearted apology from him. I am trying to show him that all the shit he spins is just that, shit. Even if I don't like Suit, I normally take him seriously. I just can't take you and Sue seriously anymore. Honestly, can you REALLY blame me?

SushiJaguar, on 24 March 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

Oh, I know I share some of Suit's traits. But we go back to what you said earlier: "The thing is, Meowth, you're hating on Suit for having traits that are actually pretty admirable, even if they're as misguided as hell." Just because I share those traits, it does not mean they're misguided. And if they are, I'm confident it is not nearly as bad. I would tear myself a part if I acted like he did half-the-time, and he would probably attest.

Sushi, I can say the exact same thing. Why does it surprise or confuse Suit that he is being treated so poorly? He has treated people, for whatever reason, this way. It is like a warped spin on "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Of course, that is implying that if one of the parties stopped, the other would follow. If people just gave up on criticizing Suit, do you think he would magically treat everyone nicely? I highly doubt that.

Well said, Wacko. Well said. I sort of wish everyone on here could act more mature in regards to drama. Take the "Mettlebird Incident," for example.

Was Mettlebird's title, which was written by SuitCase, out of line? Absolutely. Was Taeshi overreacting when she banned him? Yes. Was Mettlebird overreacting? Without a doubt. At the same time, was he right to complain about Taeshi/Suitcase/whoever else behind their backs? No.

That's my opinion. A lame joke at Mettlebird's expense got way out of hand, and now he's not allowed back. Everyone: let's try to do better in the future.

Well this was a somewhat interesting, yet entertaining, read.

At first I had no idea about this "secret" chatroom at all, but then I got thinking. I remembered accepting a friend request on Skype a couple months ago from someone, I think it was BasketCase, and BOOM, I was whisked into some kind of chat room on Skype (I didn't even know Skype could do that unless it was during voice chat ) and at first I was startled because I did not recognize anyone, but then my momentary retardation lifted and I knew what was going on. I had to stop having Skype auto-sign-in on start-up because Skype was constantly blinking with notifications about posts in that chatroom, it was annoying. Though, the very few times I ventured in to see what Skype was having a seizure over, it was just random chatter and people shooting the shit... thought it odd not to just go on IRC, but I guess Skype text chat is a little less chaotic. Whatever.

So does that make me an idiot too, even though I was actively ignoring it?

This post has been edited by ChewySmokey: 25 March 2012 - 12:47 AM

So long as you did not partake in insulting people behind their backs, no.

Johnny Hurricane, on 25 March 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

Cool beans, I prefer insulting people to their internet faces.

ChewySmokey, on 25 March 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

I'm glad we agree on that.

im gay ignore this bump

This post has been edited by whf: 25 March 2012 - 05:14 AM

UNRELATED THINGS THAT HAVE CROPPED UP IN THIS THREAD BECAUSE YOU ALL APPEAR TO HAVE ISSUES CONCENTRATING

MettleBird and criticism of the way I treated him

I am a stubborn person. I'm certainly capable of empathy - in fact, I'm pretty good at figuring out how people will end up feeling about things I do or say - but when somebody acts in a way that I find unacceptable, I'll poke and prod at them to signal that I dislike it and to potentially shame them into acting differently. Before you lash out at that idea, remember than most of you do this a lot! Not a lot of empathy is shown towards people like Amazil and SoulTH and so on. The only difference is that I pick on the mid-tier idiots that you don't have the confidence (or intolerance) to call out.

Enter MettleBird. He was an annoying "mid-tier idiot" on the forum and seemed to make things worse for everyone. At one point, he had this huge melodramatic fit about his girlfriend when Grass made a childish joke about her dying, and (like most of you) I thought it was over the top. So I did what I do and I poked and prodded the mid-tier moron by putting the thing Grass said in MettleBird's title. He flipped out, I felt satisfied that he had this albatross around his neck for acting like an idiot, and eventually he left, never actually banning him. I later tweaked the title for use on Grass when Grass was acting like a melodramatic idiot about some girl on the forum.

At some point he posted some thread on the Housepets forum badmouthing us for the incident. Then, months later, he returned. Veronica was annoyed that he would try and return after that Housepets thread, so I thought "well, I would have banned him for being a disruptive idiot anyway" and did so. It just took his return to remind me that a ban was necessary.

The MettleBird issue, and this passage of Meowth's post regarding it:

Meowth, on 24 March 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

Is a great example of this contention people have with me, and can be easily applied to things like "Christian Brigade" or this thread itself. I think the criticisms above are misguided - I think about my actions, I'm always interested in alternative opinions, and I definitely think I can be wrong about things.

I think I can frame this better. The issue that Meowth has with me re: MettleBird is the same issue many people have with me regarding "forum drama" generally: I am deliberately unempathetic towards people who behave in ways I don't respect. That's it. That's why I bug some of you.

Not everyone is like this - many tolerate people that act in ways offensive to them, or shy away from confrontation and I avoid them. My philosophy is that it's better to call people out. I think this means it's okay for you to consider me "blunt" or "harsh" or "aggressive". But not "without humility" or "superior" - I deliberately want to expose my opinions and inspire disagreement precisely because I think it helps me understand others better and form better opinions. If I shied away from public arguments, avoided confrontation and made passive-aggressive remarks when I disagreed with people, then you'd have a good case - but I don't, and so I think any remarks about me being smugly superior to everybody is a fundamental misinterpretation of my intentions.

Some of Meowth's additional criticism that I just gotta respond to

"I, however, do think that his behavior "invalidates" his "right" to not be talked about behind his back."
I don't think anyone deserves this right. But I do think it's fine and good to call people out publicly when you sense somebody's doing it, unfairly.

"He has shown before that he will use every trick in the bag to put someone down, whether or not it is relevant to the argument."
I find this very distasteful! I'd feel worse about myself and try to fix it if I believed this to be true, because I agree - weaselly unfair techniques to disparage other people are universally awful and people who do that deserve a lot of shit.

THE ACTUAL POINT OF THIS THREAD

I talked to BasketCase and Chrispy in the IRC. I am mostly convinced of these points:

• The Formspring questioner was overstating the amount of criticism. When I made the error in tracing Gurren (a sockpuppet account of SoulTH), BasketCase got very angry about it for a short period, which the Formspring questioner may have witnessed.
  
• Otherwise, very little goes on in the Skype besides occasional criticism of Susan for being rude - familiar ground for the IRC or forum itself.
  
• BasketCase is a bit unstable and can't think properly. She has strange half-formed reasons for not responding in this thread, which means I got put in the awkward position of having to look like I really deeply cared about this private Skype chat when I was hoping to get a simple, quick response from its members.
  
• That's it. I have lingering suspicions that there's more to it than this, especially because the Random Chat group of last year got pretty vicious and vindictive about admins at a certain point, but I have no proof of it and either way I don't really care enough to think deeply about it.

So, I declare the question of this thread resolved. I got a response, and it was simple and mostly believable.

Is this matter "put to bed"? No, the feelings expressed in this topic are an ongoing mess and it has to be cleaned up. But I'm going to work on an update to the forum rules topic to better resolve future problems.

Well I hope the small response I made was "suit"able and we can "tae" this matter up.

10:05pm <Susan> when
10:05pm <Susan> when
10:05pm <Susan> who
10:06pm <Susan> who are you
10:06pm <Susan> well taeshi is a slut so no surprise
10:06pm <Baskey> Susan, shut up.

Susan was kind of mean to tae, not basket. Basket doesn't even like tae, from what I can tell. There was no reason to tell susan to shut up insted of answering the question.

SuitCase, on 24 March 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

No,
this has nothing to do with us.
None of these people have anything to do with us as far as I know.
And if you are sticking by the "idiots around a girl" idea, you are going to have to post something showing them being as creepy as we were or else any group with a girl could qualify for your description.

SergeantLuke, on 24 March 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Always and recursivly so. Welcome, you're bitching now too.

Johnny Hurricane, on 24 March 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

No
This thread has nothing to do with making BASKY appologise or making BASKY feal bad. That is not the reason for this thread. This thread is badly titled and badly presented. The question that suit seems to have wanted to ask was "Why do groups of idiots who seem to hate us keep croping up?"

Now, I could go on about susan or tae or snooths for awhile but I think I will condence them into one paragraph and expand on suit, who seems to be the focus. Whenever I have actualy reread anything involving susan that did not involve religion, she said nothing rude before people got mad but somehow she convinced everyone around her that she was attacking. I have no idea why this happens and I can't even see it in retrospect and I have no advice that might lead to a resolution of this issue. Tae seems to sporaticly shift between pretending that nothing is a problem and pretending everything is a problem. I can only blame some sort of belief that everyone hates her. Snooths seems to retell one joke over and over. I think it goes something like "Look at this post bro, it looks like I said something offencive but I actualy didn't say anything! Now, when people get mad, they can only blame themselves!" In all of these casses, I actualy enjoy their posts and try to play along and/or antagonise them.

Suit, on the other hand, I find a bore. This is not a flaw in his personality as other people seem to like him and I don't know him that well.

Every time he posts he seems to radiate the "I am right, clearly." vibe that meoth mentioned. I don't know how he does it and he is perfectly right to defend himself when this very valid complaint is levied against him. That isn't a reason to hate. That is just a reason to think he is kind of douchy. What would be a reason to hate? Why, thank you for accepting the role of an annonymos, mid-post responce! The reason is that he rudly beats you over the head with the fact he is right whenever he finds himself a bit shy and can't help but ridicule anything he thinks is wrong, even if he is honestly curious as to what the other poster is thinking and this is compounded by his weird, radiated vibe of rightness.

Quote

Does not understand, immediatly assumes that everyone has something wrong with them.

Quote

nuf said

Quote

Unless your opinion is totaly worthless to him, he NEEDS to save some face. It's not an opinion, it's fact.

Quote

Actualy, it's not. The first one is a grammer error if they intended too say "Your good person did something." but they thought that an "a" was needed and forgot to ad a preticate. The first one is a spelling error if they intended to say "You're a good person." but they thought that "you're" had no " ' " or "e". Grammer is about structure of sentence and spelling is about structure of word. However, this isn't about how you were wrong. It is about how you desided to toss a "clearly" in there like there was no possable way that your interpretation was wrong. You know, arrogant appearance.

Quote

Not only did you deside that it was a bad show, you desided that the veiwers were swindled idiots.

Bourbon, on 01 December 2011 - 07:18 PM, said:

This was directly after. This is how people see you suit. We see you as the arrogant guy who can't help but show off how correct his bias is and who can't help but backhand even his honest curiosity.

The reason why no one can lay out the things that BasketCase and the others feel about you, and what their justification for feeling that, is that this looks like a thread built to publicly humiliate basket. This thread looks like it was built to humiliate basket because you couldn't help but slander the moron. You couldn't just phrase your question, insted you had to shove a daming quote in everyones faces and hope that they answered your question without you ever having to admit you didn't understand something So, the reason why people sometimes deside that they don't like you, is the reason why this topic is titled "So, BasketCase."
You had a question but rather then ask the question, you had to humiliate the thing that confused you.

The reason they blame you forr something you had almost nothing to do with, is linked to the fact that you are in charge and deside how things go. For instance, is someone doesn't like bush or obama, they are more likly to simply blame everything on them.

This post has been edited by Craft aids: 25 March 2012 - 06:22 AM

Lvl 50 Fighter, on 25 March 2012 - 06:10 AM, said:

Well I guess you could say this "Case" has been solved.

This post has been edited by WTF: 25 March 2012 - 06:15 AM

No worse than mine

Craft Aids, no one likes you and your stupid psuedointellectial bullshit.

"I am right, clearly." (tee hee because Craft Aids)

Every time I read one of craft's posts, a little part of me dies.

Kaxbe, on 25 March 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

I don't even know what "psuedo" means when people put it in frount of things.
I take it to mean "fake" but I'll bother to google it. Feal honored.

"being apparently rather than actually as stated"
So, you admit that I look intelegent but somehow you just know it's fake.

I'll ask you what I asked the last person who levied this claim on me.
Do I really look like I am trying to make you respect my intelect? Do I REALLY seem like the kind of person that is unwilling to let you see me act stupid? Do I really seem like I am trying to make you think I am smart? Maybe I am smart, maybe I'm not, but I will tell you right now I don't give a danm if you end up thinking I am the dumbest motherfucker on the planet but I will not stop debating no matter how bad you think I am.

This post has been edited by Craft aids: 25 March 2012 - 06:41 AM

Every time Chris posts an welshman gets a sack of potatoes

Lvl 50 Fighter, on 25 March 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

*fixed

What would I do without you?

Lvl 50 Fighter, on 25 March 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

Cure every disease, solve world hunger, go back in time and make the allies win WW2 instead of the nazis, you're killing brain cells by looking at my stupid posts, run away while you still can.

Craft aids, on 25 March 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

It's like watching a dog constantly run into a glass door.

Does wtf mean "World to Fuck"?

Lvl 50 Fighter, on 25 March 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

Sure, let's go with that.

I originally was not going to reply, but you’ve put me in a bit of a bind. “it's been my experience with you that you're quick to give up on a challenge and will instead just wander away muttering about how unfair I am or whatever. Which means that even if my argument was weak, I never had to reconsider it.“ In light of something like this, I feel a bit obligated to respond!

SuitCase, on 25 March 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

It is amazing you said so much, yet completely dodged the point. Are you going to try and tell everyone on this forum there was not something overtly crude and downright sinister to the title you gave him? That was the worst part of it all, and possibly one of the worst things you’ve done on this forum, yet no explanation? If you want to be direct and prodding, by all means, as long as you expect the assumed and occasional backlash, but are you completely lacking self-control? I guess you did stop to think, and somehow you found your ridiculous actions acceptable.

SuitCase, on 25 March 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

I’ve heard this from you before, but you can imagine I have trouble believing you, since it is quite possibly the most ineffective and ridiculous thing I’ve heard in my life. And yes, you are without humility. You are trying to sit here and tell me you do this all to gain “better opinions.” How is that working out? Because I don’t think I can recall a time you admitted to being wrong; which is funny, because I can easily recall times where you actually were wrong.

“If I shied away from public arguments, avoided confrontation and made passive-aggressive remarks when I disagreed with people, then you'd have a good case - but I don't, and so I think any remarks about me being smugly superior to everybody is a fundamental misinterpretation of my intentions.”

I don’t see how those first two really have anything to do with you being superior or without humility – except in specific occasions. As for you being passive-aggressive, by your definition, you are. You’ve called me passive-aggressive so many times it isn’t even funny, yet you have done plenty of the same things I’ve done. My title is proof to your passive-aggressiveness. You literally waited a month to give me that title; it came out of nowhere. No one knew why I got it, including Taeshi. And whether or not it is REALLY passive-aggressive doesn’t matter, because I know if the positions were switched and I gave you that title, you would consider it passive-aggressive, like you consider every waking thing that I do to be.

SuitCase, on 25 March 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

Countless times I have seen you really use some weak tactics. And before you can say it, yes, everybody has done it. Everybody has made poor points at some time. My problem lies with how inclined you seem toward doing it, and it is my belief that you may not even realize it is happening. So many times I’ve seen you shrug someone off because of bias (they’re defending a girl, they’re saving face…ect.), because of passive-aggressive behavior (they’re just mad this or this, they’re just mad about something that happened awhile ago, they’re just mad I insulted him or her…ect.), insulting people (your opinions are moronic, you’re inarticulate, you’re whiteknighting…ect.), and what is best of all of this, is that none of those are relevant to almost any discussion. They may shed some light on things, but when all is said and done, an argument is an argument, and sometimes detecting underlying motivations or assuming someone’s feelings just doesn’t mean anything. I’ve often seen you try and use these as explanations or points when they’re obviously not.

SuitCase, on 25 March 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

“esalaka, the kind of sentiment in your post - and Nik's, and some others - is again a seemingly deliberate way to avoid fulfilling the purpose of this topic. The purpose being: to shed light on these undercurrents of anti-me-and-Vero sentiment. If people just mumble about feeling negative and "agreeing with Baskey" then you're hardly saying anything at all.”

You may want to spin this in a way that makes me seem at fault, but I have been responding to that topic above. I haven’t been in here spouting random nonsensical shit that no one agrees with. I’ve been explaining to you why this animosity exists. Honestly, even if you hadn’t said that, I would figure, as an admin, you would at least be curious. Is it because I personally said it? If someone else had said it, like Basket or Chris, for example, would that have changed the way you saw all of this?

SuitCase, on 25 March 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

I'd like to say here that you can't feasably justify what you did to Mettlebird while still keeping credibility. His title, even after thinking over his actions, was completely unnecessary, totally thoughtless and would be seriously offensive- but wait, he's a second-class citizen, a "Mid-tier idiot", so what does it matter? You, as the administrator, should be able to excercise the self-control necessary to stop yourself from spitting on people you don't like.

SuitCase, on 25 March 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

This is exactly the issue everyone has with you. What kind of an attitude is that for someone who is supposed to keep order? You may as well just change the forum rules to "Do what I say" and be done with it.
If you're going to claim that us calling you out on this is a "Fundamental misinterpretation of [your] actions", then why behave this way? If you can claim to be able to figure out what people are going to do or say, then why didn't you predict a backlash? This may all seem out of proportion, but honestly, I think you're the one with an attitude problem.

I'm not uncomfortable leaving your replies unanswered. I think to a person reading this page of replies, they would perceive me as I'd like to be perceived.

If that's the case, then you seriously need to get your priorities in order, because that's an attitude I don't think anyone can respect.

I'm reading this page without taking part of your argument, and I can assure you, you're not being perceived the way you want to.
Not by me at least.

I'm guessing this whole "warn status" thing I just saw when I looked at my profile is a result of this? Reminds me sort of how Serenes Forest operates, except there, there's stuff like suspensions and whatnot. Anyway, I approve of the warn status addition--mainly because it's pretty effective at my home forum.

I'm really hoping I wasn't so slow that this warn status thing has always been here and I just didn't notice...