most of my veins have blood in them. that's good enough for me.
mondecitronne
we are yet to be introduced to various mechanisms which will alter our ability to so brazenly ascend forth, particularly that of skin.
who is mark?
— citrons
- joined
- a very long time ago
recent posts
we have not enGEORGEd anyone in quite a while. I wish to end the misery of all poor souls who wish it: incapability of "doing stuff" is endemic to the council of GEORGE, due to brain things, having busy lives, or both. if your enGEORGEment request has sat for a very long time, it is nothing personal, nor a reflection of what we think of your website, solely a reflection of this fact.
as such, enGEORGEment requests are officially closed. this does not necessarily mean that no one will ever be added to GEORGE again, but it does mean that there is no official procedure to facilitate this.
truly incredible.
alright, everyone. this discussion is over. if you have something to say further, let it be about the actual topic/voting in the poll.
No claim is immune to questioning, no matter what.
the only "claim" I was making is that we might ban you.
citrons, your metaphor is incorrect.
I don't care. I am using the metaphor to communicate the point. it is not an argument for you to refute. it is a piece of information that I am providing to you, for your benefit.
Then it is your responsibility to comprehensively and unambiguously elucidate what you mean by that
it's not really my responsibility to do anything. think of apionet as our house. if we get tired of you, we can remove you from our house. we'd like to be nice to you and let you be in our house. however, there are various ways you can make this difficult for us.
without adjudicating who is right or who is wrong, you have many, many strict principles which you like to apply to everything being discussed and point out constantly. regardless of how severe you think something is, you should consider how severe we think it is and how appropriate we would find your objections to them to be.
you enumerate a set of harms which we do not subscribe to. we do not think banning someone from a chatroom or a minecraft server is a violation of their inalienable rights. if you can't adjust your conduct in light of this, we might want to see you out of our house.
ok so you assume i'm not following the guidelines just because i said i'm following the guidelines? maybe you're not following the guidelines yourself?
you are breaking the guidelines right now.
i already follow those guidelines? and what's that image meant to imply? it's hard to not find offence by it.
the image is meant to imply that those who cause the events which this thread is about are the ones in this thread saying that they aren't a problem and never happen.
take a moment to consider the fact that the least likely person to recognize that a behavior is causing problems is the one perpetrating it, that perhaps you should actually rethink what you have done and do regularly. since, if you were immediately able to recognize it, you probably wouldn't be doing it in the first place.
i don't recall those
well, perhaps the guidelines will help you reduce this behavior in the future.
the guidelines are already implied and being followed
caesar, there have been arguments with you wherein you have completely denied direct evidence provided against your claims.
[make sure that] your dissent is appropriate, kind, worthwhile, and warranted. do not derail conversations by throwing around inflamatory terms out of the blue. they must actually correspond to the severity and importance of what is discussed. when in doubt, hold your tongue.
this is why I wrote this!!
if you can't understand this, we might have to just ban you. again. indefinitely. oh, how unethical!
addendum: consider the fact that I mean words the way I mean them, not the way you mean them. when I say "kind and appropriate", I mean "kind and appropriate" by my standards, not by yours. I am expecting you to adhere to "kind and appropriate" by my standards.
I concede that it may be difficult, for one reason or another, to consider how what you say affects another person. but when they tell you how it affects them, you should actually listen to them.
When descriptions are levied upon things, politeness is irrelevant: things are not people, and have no feelings that can be hurt. It is irrational for a person to take offense on behalf of things.
instead of reverting to your dogmatic principles, I will ask you to instead consider why someone might dislike having their interest called "objectively harmful and masochistic". do not try to convince me of why you called it that, because we're trying not to rehash these arguments, and because, quite frankly, you're wrong. either you need to gain some perspective or gain some restraint.