It's gone!

No, I do not think I will fuck off. I think I will stay.

 

I'm as pissed off at Zodiac as the rest of you, but that doesn't mean the rules of the Help Desk are suddenly different.

 

I hope no moderators or admins are so pissed off that they wouldn't issue warnings when it would be inappropriate not to do so.

Just sayin'.

 

As regards the privacy issue, just remember - unless your face appears in the same pic as your naughty parts, there's very darn little that can be done to harm you with it.

Plausable deniability and all that.

 

Well I think this was the general idea when it was request approval only, but apparently that didn't work.

Zodiac's bastard stunt didn't help. Hell, he's lucky I'm not Elwood, or his ass would've been off the board.

The fact apparently is that not enough people on this board can be trusted well enough to grant access to WF's personal gallery of hoo-has and dirty pillows. (and I use those terms affectionately. )

Im curious as to what exactly was the catalyst and the clincher to the room's deletion.

It's unfortunate that some adults couldn't handle the privacy factor involved in such an indeavor as the Champaign Room.

Whether it's stated or not, you'd think there'd be some respect. Of course it would be far too presumptuous to assume such a thing, being it's the internet, and not everyone on WordForge knows everyone else.

Hell, there are hundreds of members that view but don't post regularly. If the Champaign Room were to be a success, only those that are known posters should have access. It stands to reason, as they're the only ones of potential trust.

But I think we'll all agree that it wasn't a total loss...




For a brief, shining moment...we saw Meka's .

 

Although I respect the Admin decision and understand the reasoning behind it, it does create a new problem with external influence on internal matters of this board. To put it bluntly, Zodiac's an ass for even offering what he did in the Red Room. It requires a person without scruples, without ethics, and lacking trustworthiness to attempt such.

-J.

 

I disagree.

 

I consider your disagreement without merit. It would be the equivalent of listening to the Grand Wizard of the KKK give an unbiased thesis on the biological equality of the human race.

-J.

 

Isn't your statement merely an opinion? What sort of disagreement with it would have merit?

 

It requires a command decision to ban Zodiac post-haste. I wonder why that hasn't happened yet.

 

For?

 

Simply put, I don't trust you. And your track record shows that you cannot, and should not be trusted by anyone else on this board. If you were on fire and posted that you were on fire, I would have serious doubts about the authenticity of your claim. I see you as a person who wields deception and pseudo-intellectualism as a distraction for more unethical pursuits. From your posts on the board, I believe you are a ne'er do well, a liar, a scoundrel, and for all intents and purposes, someone who should not be trusted until such time they have proven their integrity.

-J.

 

Any trolling I have done has been confined to the Red Room, where AFAIK, trolling is permitted. My HD threads and posts have been nothing but genuine inquiries sans some older, ill-thought out outbursts.

I try to offer constructive criticism where I can be appreciated. WF is not my home board so you won't see as much of it as others offer.

Interesting.

With all due respect, I don't think you are mature enough to post in the HD if you cannot limit this colloquy to a polite examination of matters at hand.

 

Track record? I would like to see some examples of me breaking the trust of WF to such a degree that I should be considered as completely untrustworthy as you try to paint me.

Your belief is entirely correct, just not in this case.

It depends which forum on this board you are looking at.

You must be the first person who has stated that I should be given time to prove my integrity. I am inclined to agree.

 

It's gone!

 

A little "LOT" late aren't you GB?

 

Elwood has the flu and isn't willing to make permanent decisions when he's in less-than-full posession of his faculties.

 

You mean, it's something that would be considered? Would it be for the aforementioned reasons of "trolling" and "not contributing" ?

 

Here
Here
Here

I decided to choose something fresh in everyone's memory. I consider the nature of those posts and the subject they dealt with, more than enough to consider you untrustworthy. If you are willing to bribe others to get something for which you have been considered ineligible or unacceptable to view, then you are willing to subvert ethical boundaries to do so.

This simply reinforces what I have said. I do not trust you.

The forum doesn't matter when it is the same person posting. The forum may change but your intentions do not.

I still do not trust you. You have had time to prove your integrity. From post one until now, you have been given ample time to prove your trustworthiness. You cannot be trusted.

-J.

 

You'd seriously ban him for this? It's like you invited it. Troll baiting indeed...

 

Imagine that. Banning someone for being a pure vandal who's trying only to disrupt normal operation of the board. I know why you don't like that idea, but really, is there any better reason for a ban?

 

You know what that boils down to?

"How dare the home owner who has locks on his door, tease the thief."

-J.

 

Worst analogy ever.

 

It was in a public venue, subject to scrutiny. It was not against any board rules but more importantly, it is not a breach of any trust I have been afforded. But point taken as to the impression I might project.

You are mistaking amicability for trust. I am not smiles and sunshine when taunted, but I am not someone who can't keep a secret.

I have not been afforded trust because I have not been happy-go-lucky. There is a difference between that and being trustworthy.

 

We have been over this. Please establish that my presence here has been one of pure vandalism before making such a claim again.

 

No, you have not been afforded trust because your only demonstrated purpose here is to annoy.

 

I have demonstrated a purpose?

The reason I came back to WF was to share the game I am working on, because I thought it might amuse some WFers.

I stayed a bit longer to see some boobies. Now there's talk of banning me.


Please elaborate on my "demonstrated purpose."