Should Kath Be Allowed To Continue As Moderator?

[StCapps]

He was going to spam them anyway, he always does, so his all "I said I was but I wasn't but now I am," rings totally hollow. Such BS.

Like I said, impatient and paranoid.

You threatened to do something you do on the regular and I was supposed to believe you weren't serious? C'mon - you take us all for chumps, but you are the douche bag, here, not me.

Anyway, I had no intention whatsoever of removing your posts. I got carried away in the moment. I had an actual plan; it was going to be funny - but I wasn't going to touch your words or delete your posts. Forget it, now. The only one who will look like a douche is you, if you spam threads with hundreds of unrelated posts.

I don't do it on the regular, I always allow on topic discussion to put the thread back on the rails, neithr me or Smitty have never once stayed in a thread and spammed it up only to never relinquish control, you just imagined I was going to because I made a joke.

[BjornP]

Also Capps doesn't understand the difference between moderation and censorship despite Bjorn's repeated attempts to educate him.

BjornP is a fucking idiot, who thinks they are mutually exclusive terms, and so do you apparently.

You know what's also not mutually exclusive terms? Murder and killing. Somehow people who understand the basic concept of having different words for different meanings, know that those two words are distinct words for a reason. "Not mutually exlusive" doesn't actually mean "might as well be the same thing", Capps.

[K@th]

You are only convincing yourself. Your spamming is pretty well known. I think the more you spam, the more people like you. That's what I'm hearing in IM, anyway.

[StCapps]

Also Capps doesn't understand the difference between moderation and censorship despite Bjorn's repeated attempts to educate him.

BjornP is a fucking idiot, who thinks they are mutually exclusive terms, and so do you apparently.

You know what's also not mutually exclusive terms? Murder and killing. Somehow people who understand the basic concept of having different words for different meanings, know that those two words are distinct words for a reason. "Not mutually exlusive" doesn't actually mean "might as well be the same thing", Capps.

I know they have different meanings, but there is plenty of crossover that you are trying to pretend does not exist with your silly semantic games, I am just pointing that out. You are making distinctions without meaning when there is tons of crossover between moderation and censorship, you are not actually pointing out the difference between moderation and censorship, you are pointing to similarities and claiming it's a difference.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Name-calling, lashing out at random posters, waving your ass all over the thread, desperate to score points.

This is turning into a gang beating.

[StCapps]

This is turning into a gang beating.

Yeah, Capps and Smitty mowing down all comers, as usual.

[K@th]

Name-calling, lashing out at random posters, waving your ass all over the thread, desperate to score points.

This is turning into a gang beating.

I think it's pretty funny. He's trying to make me look like an asshole by proving to everyone how much of an asshole he really is.

[StCapps]

Name-calling, lashing out at random posters, waving your ass all over the thread, desperate to score points.

This is turning into a gang beating.

I think it's pretty funny. He's trying to make me look like an asshole by proving to everyone how much of an asshole he really is.

And it's working beautifully, liberty > good manners.

Do I care if you think I am an asshole? Not at all. You said it yourself, I'm not wrong, I'm just an asshole, I'll take that all day, especially in this scenario.

[DrYouth]

by proving to everyone how much of an asshole he really is.

And it's working beautifully, liberty > good manners.

It's possible to uphold both...
Ever considered that.

[StCapps]

by proving to everyone how much of an asshole he really is.

And it's working beautifully, liberty > good manners.

It's possible to uphold both...
Ever considered that.

Indeed, but in this case bad manners are called for as a retaliation for threatening liberty.