Is this new way around guidelines acceptable to ECCIE Staff?

OP is a fake handle, Old-T.

Everyone here knows that.

Originally Posted by Toyz

Really? What a shock!

Really? What a shock! Originally Posted by Old-T

I know...I was hurt when I found out...

Was the OP's post about "sides" or a practice in place of speculating about the medical condition of a member without actually naming him?

Toyz and gang are running around quite freely insinuating that ***** ******* is having some sort of melt down and needs medical attention.

People have complained for a long time about rules being unfairly applied when they really did not understand those rules and why some people couldn't be held accountable in the manner they believed they should. Now these same people are way across the line themselves.... Originally Posted by Whispers

As is usually the case, a post typically can be read at more than one level.

Given the nature of this forum the past little while I read the OP I. A bit broader context (as I am often want to do). I read it as, in an only slightly generalized way, a complaint that two individuals are undermining the value/credibility of the board. While I understand the OP's point, my reply was that the usefulness and credibility is being trashed by a clear uncivil war among two sides, yet the OP only condemns one of those sides. And oddly, the side that has made far fewerr pablumizing posts.

While I agree that the one side is stepping across the delineated bounds more often, I believe the other side--exemplified by SL's spam attacks--is equally detrimental to the usefulness of this forum. Probably more so.

Thus my generalization from the OP's rather narrow statement to a broader commentary on the lawless gun toting world that is the Austin forum.

As is usually the case, a post typically can be read at more than one level.

Given the nature of this forum the past little while I read the OP I. A bit broader context (as I am often want to do). I read it as, in an only slightly generalized way, a complaint that two individuals are undermining the value/credibility of the board. While I understand the OP's point, my reply was that the usefulness and credibility is being trashed by a clear uncivil war among two sides, yet the OP only condemns one of those sides. And oddly, the side that has made far fewerr pablumizing posts.

While I agree that the one side is stepping across the delineated bounds more often, I believe the other side--exemplified by SL's spam attacks--is equally detrimental to the usefulness of this forum. Probably more so.

Thus my generalization from the OP's rather narrow statement to a broader commentary on the lawless gun toting world that is the Austin forum. Originally Posted by Old-T

Nobody want to deal with you in National any more? Proof??? Or just shut up!

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=3]If you think that ones funny, check this one out! This is from the fake OPs original post...


[i]"If this is allowable it seems to reason that next we could see people beginning to out other people by first building a reference to someone in all one's comments that he is an Internet Warrior and then beginning discussion about him like " I have this friend that works at XXXXXXXX as in the position of XXXXXXXXX and he is addicted to posting on ECCIE.Com as an Internet Warrior. If you don't believe me drive by XXX XXXXXXXX RD and you will see him sitting at his computer 24/7 logged onto ECCIE."

He is actually predicting the future and wanting something enforced off of something that has not happened! Originally Posted by Toyz

I didn't read it that way Toyz.... Your ignorance continues to shine....

I think he's presenting a hypothetical way someone might first refer to someone as .... hmmm... say... "The Ignorant One" a few dozen times the way you have referred to SL and his "meltdown".......... and then start a thread that they have this really ignorant friend that lives at {RL Address} and works at {real life company} and use the precedent you are setting in your medical questions threads and posts to out someone...... but of course to hide behind the fact that they never really use the members name....

I didn't read it that way Toyz.... Your ignorance continues to shine....

I think he's presenting a hypothetical way someone might first refer to someone as .... hmmm... say... "The Ignorant One" a few dozen times the way you have referred to SL and his "meltdown".......... and then start a thread that they have this really ignorant friend that lives at {RL Address} and works at {real life company} and use the precedent you are setting in your medical questions threads and posts to out someone...... but of course to hide behind the fact that they never really use the members name.... Originally Posted by Whispers

Did anyone expect you to see it any other way? Since you most likely wrote it...LOL

I didn't read it that way Toyz.... Your ignorance continues to shine....

I think he's presenting a hypothetical way someone might first refer to someone as .... hmmm... say... "The Ignorant One" a few dozen times the way you have referred to SL and his "meltdown".......... and then start a thread that they have this really ignorant friend that lives at {RL Address} and works at {real life company} and use the precedent you are setting in your medical questions threads and posts to out someone...... but of course to hide behind the fact that they never really use the members name.... Originally Posted by Whispers

Seems your the only one saying 2 + 2 =5. Who are you trying to out? That's against the rules...

Seems your the only one saying 2 + 2 =5. Who are you trying to out? That's against the rules... Originally Posted by budman33

I KNOW!

Man, its like...do you remember Jon Lovitzs Saturday night live character "The Liar"?

You wrote something...
No, You broke a rule...
No, You are outing someone...
YAH, that's the ticket...outing someone.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...A360D496FF46A3

I didn't read it that way Toyz.... Your ignorance continues to shine....

I think he's presenting a hypothetical way someone might first refer to someone as .... hmmm... say... "The Ignorant One" a few dozen times the way you have referred to SL and his "meltdown".......... and then start a thread that they have this really ignorant friend that lives at {RL Address} and works at {real life company} and use the precedent you are setting in your medical questions threads and posts to out someone...... but of course to hide behind the fact that they never really use the members name.... Originally Posted by Whispers

At least he's not fucking fat chicks.... Originally Posted by Whispers

Yeah, when you don't have an argument of substance, resort to an ad hominem attack (and a complete non sequitur it was).

At least he's not fucking fat chicks.... Originally Posted by Whispers

You were paying to fuck Sombrehart, not hwp. Rock on superstar.\
How many pounds until Wifey is kicked to the curb?