Why is Nick Ballsack a mod again?

I'm sure there's a thread or two out there to bump.

Now, don't go deleting them!

 

Or closing them.

 

Mods never abuse their powers, so we have nothing to worry about.

 

Hey, look!!!

Troll Pie!



Troll pie is made with potatoes, carrots, rutabaga, onion and venison burger.

 

Are you talking about yourself again?

Fucking ego...

 

Let's get down to the brass tacks about Ballsack.

Well, you probably shouldn't use brass tacks and Ballsack in the same sentence, but...

Ballsack is back to finish fucking up the rep system that most of us didn't want changed in the first place.

 

Yeah that doesn't work.

Tamar started it. She's responsible for everything that follows because Tamar knows this board and knows someone will put up that link.

It's the same crap with the Cheeky Monkey shit.

She's owns everything that followed from that thread. (CD's thread)

 

Faceman, bros before hoes only qualifies if it can be positively ascertained that the female in question is, indeed, a hoe.

From what followed up, it was determined that the lady in question certainly qualified as a hoe.

To make a long story short, Nick chose wrong. He is not a good friend, nor is he a good person.

 

I didn't, actually, and I frequented that thread often. But then, I have more things to think about in life beside board drama.

But you were still doing the same thing you accused Tamar of doing and dragging a poster that had nothing to do with it into it. And for everything else that's been said about you over the years, I've always known you to be above hypocrisy.

 

'cos he said he'd get Nick on at GM if he sucked him off.

Then GM shit the bed and Chris welshed on his promise.

 

No, what I heard is that if Chris got Nick an interview at GM, Nick would ask his girlfriend (the one Chris liked) to suck Chris off. But then Nick and the girl broke up, Nick got rolled for his iphone by that homeless guy and missed that all important call from GM for the interview, so then Nick was left having to satisfy Chris himself.

That homeless dude with an iphone is now working for GM.

 

Nick is back on staff because O2C is just one guy and if something happens to him, there goes our technical support.

 

Crap. Who was the other technical guy? The one right here in Portland? I even met him. He agreed to take my Betta when I went to Hawaii.

Kyle?

Anyway, I wish he'd come back.

 

Nah, can't be that; it actually makes sense. Must be some deep, dark agenda.

 

Well, Nick....it wouldn't be Wordforge without the Welcome back hazing and outpouring of authority hate.

 

a) I'm a better friend than most of my friends deserve.
b) Aren't you religious? Doesn't Christianity tend to frown on mortals passing judgment on each other?
c) If she was a ho, then I would have gotten laid.

 

Shrug, doesn't bother me, if anything it's fascinating. The behavior of these individuals is more in-line with a spoiled teenager than a group of adults, even down to the screams of "fascist cunt" whenever they don't get their way.

 

Yep.

 

Tootin' your own horn, eh Ballsack?

He didn't say you were going to Hell for it.

You pissed off your friend and didn't even get laid?

 

Oh, shut the fuck up with your loopholes and rationalizations, you fucking sanctimonious, misogynistic pus bag.

 

What happens when you go before a judge? Seriously - answer.

 

Can it really be said to be a "loophole" if it's a fundamental facet the principle in question?

The answer is "no".

 

Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

He then turned around and told the woman to "Go and sin no more."

I don't plan on killing anyone by stoning them - or harming in any way. I do plan on challenging people when they do wrong things.

 

The consequences of judgement is punishment.

But what it says is "Judge not, lest ye be judged" not "Punish not, lest ye be punished."

 

It's a loophole out of admitting to being a judgemental assbag who ought to see to his own deeply flawed self before presuming to judge others, then.

 

You're not looking at context, or even the meaning of the word you're using.

 

Are you trying to argue that because Jesus immediately judged the woman, that you can too provided you're not throwing rocks? Did I miss something and suddenly you are Jesus? Talk about missing the point.

 

What I'm looking at is an evolutionary dead end who cowers behind a book of fairy tales rather than admitting his prejudices.

 

My point is that Jesus did NOT judge the woman.