page 2 says terminate

12/8/2005 1:11:42 PM

salisburyboy won this thread.

12/8/2005 1:39:54 PM

Quote :

"If you have something useless to say, keep it to yourself."

Quote :

"Be thoughtful/humorous - Hundreds of people browse the message board each day. Before you post something, think to yourself, "would the majority of the users want to read this?". If the answer is "no", then don't post it."

12/8/2005 1:44:15 PM

oooo burn

12/8/2005 1:50:54 PM

salisburyboy should be suspended/banned from Soapbox for the same reason MacGyver was suspended/banned from sports talk. You can't even bring up 9/11 or any other terrorist attack/natural disaster/ etc. without this faggot spouting some bullshit about Jew conspiracies or some nonsense.

Before guth even bttted his threads, I have been noticing for the last several weeks that you can't hardly check for new threads in the soap box because you have to wade through 5-6 salisburyboy conspiracy theory threads right near the top.

Also

Quote :

"Before you post something, think to yourself, "would the majority of the users want to read this?". If the answer is "no", then don't post it."

[Edited on December 8, 2005 at 1:52 PM. Reason : zactly]

[Edited on December 8, 2005 at 2:13 PM. Reason : d]

12/8/2005 1:51:20 PM

Quote :

"salisburyboy should be suspended/banned from Soapbox for the same reason [user]Macguyver[/user] was suspended/banned from sports talk. You can't even bring up 9/11 or any other terrorist attack/natural disaster/ etc. without this faggot spouting some bullshit about Jew conspiracies or some nonsense. Before guth even bttted his threads, I have been noticing for the last several weeks that you can't hardly check for new threads in the soap box because you have to wade through 5-6 salisburyboy conspiracy theory threads right near the top."

Ok, and how is any of what you alleged against any rule? And if I broke no rule, how can I be suspended?

12/8/2005 2:01:01 PM

I posted what rule you broke. Basically what MacGyver did to sports talk, you are doing here. So if he can be banned from sports talk (which he was), then you should be banned from here as well.

12/8/2005 2:17:38 PM

As usual the persecutors are attacking anyone who doesn't share their point of view. I don't agree with any of what some posters say, but I don't think they should be banned. Forums, particularly ones about politics, are for fostering open discussions about the topics at hand. Can't have much of a discussion if YOU DON'T HAVE OPPOSING POINTS OF VIEW!! You people discrimiHATE against Salisburyboy for merely having a point of view that doesn't line up with yours.

YOU DON'T THINK LIKE ME, BAN YOU WE MUST

YOU HAVE AN OPPOSING VIEW THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH, GET THE FUCK OUT!

INDIVIDUALITY WILL NOT BE TOLERATED HERE. YOU MUST EITHER CONFORM AND GOOSE STEP IN LOCK STEP WITH MAJORITY POINT OF VIEW OR BE BANISHED!!! WE ARE THE BORG!!!

Of course I will be flamed and insulted for this by the persecutors, because they hate dissent. Anyone who challenges the way they think is the enemy and must be done away with (bannishment). Sad.

[Edited on December 8, 2005 at 2:48 PM. Reason : sp]

12/8/2005 2:39:08 PM

Quote :

"I posted what rule you broke. Basically what MacGyver did to sports talk, you are doing here."

I question whether that is a "rule" that is used as the basis to suspend posters. It seems more like a guideline for posters.

Look at the "rule" you referenced:

Quote :

""Before you post something, think to yourself, "would the majority of the users want to read this?". If the answer is "no", then don't post it.""

#1: Is my belief (ie, the thoughts of the poster) the standard here? Because I DO believe the majority of the users want to read the things I post. If so, case closed. I haven't broken the "rule"/guideline.

#2: If the belief of the poster is NOT the standard, then does that mean if 49.5% of the posters don't want to read the content of the post, then that user must be suspended and banned? OF COURSE NOT. Such a rule would mean that only majority views could be posted and expressed. It would be a rule that censors minority viewpoints. That's ridiculous.


[Edited on December 8, 2005 at 2:48 PM. Reason : `]

12/8/2005 2:46:03 PM

Quote :

"Because I DO believe the majority of the users want to read the things I post."

Its painfully obvious that the majority of users want you to GTFO.

12/8/2005 2:49:13 PM

I'm actually embarrassed to be arguing with you dude, so this will be my last post on the matter.

I don't agree with most of the crap in the soap box. In fact, I think alot of these posters are downright wrong and stupid. However, none of them are as obnoxious about stuff as you are.

There are threads explaining why MacGyver was banned in sports talk. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Its the same way in sports talk for me though. There are plenty of carolina fans in their that I disagree with and think that most of their posts are stupid. But none of them were nearly as obnoxious about it as he was.

Bottom line: If MacGyver was suspended/banned from Sports Talk, then salisburyboy should be from here.

[Edited on December 8, 2005 at 3:08 PM. Reason : none not few]

12/8/2005 3:06:19 PM

I don't know anything about the situation with MacGyver being banned from Sports Talk. If he was banned, it should have been so based upon set out rules, and that is what applies to me and everyone else. The rules are what matters. That's why I'm focussing on that.

12/8/2005 3:16:38 PM

you know this ia a privately owned site, right?

they can ban you because they don't like your breath.

rules. on tww. pffffft.

12/8/2005 3:18:47 PM

you do realize proto that he isnt the disenting viewpoint.

id be like...

A: god i love chunky peanut butter, the chunks add a good deal of flavor and give it some texture
B: naw, chunkky sux ass. smooth is the ultimate texture.
Salisbury: the jews make peanut butter while sitting on their throne of lies, the chunks are there to control your mind.

you see, in this example, he doesnt even post relevant to the topic but instead comes up with some crazy theory that doesnt even require a logical person to counter. he usually just makes his own thread though so as to avoid being called out on it, but 99% of the time they are topics that are only created in his and other conspiracy theorists minds or have already been investigated.

12/8/2005 3:19:36 PM

I find JonHGuth's high horse way more fucking annoying than anything salisburyboy has ever done.

12/8/2005 3:26:37 PM

more like:

A: god i love chunky peanut butter, the chunks add a good deal of flavor and give it some texture
B: naw, chunkky sux ass. smooth is the ultimate texture.
Salisbury: FYI:

Quote :

"Jews Make Peanut Butter While Sitting on Their Throne of Lies The chunks are there to control your mind."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/sandwich_spreads/peanut_butter/zionists.htm/

12/8/2005 3:29:48 PM

Quote :

"you do realize proto that he isnt the disenting viewpoint. id be like... A: god i love chunky peanut butter, the chunks add a good deal of flavor and give it some texture B: naw, chunkky sux ass. smooth is the ultimate texture. Salisbury: the jews make peanut butter while sitting on their throne of lies, the chunks are there to control your mind. you see, in this example, he doesnt even post relevant to the topic but instead comes up with some crazy theory that doesnt even require a logical person to counter. he usually just makes his own thread though so as to avoid being called out on it, but 99% of the time they are topics that are only created in his and other conspiracy theorists minds or have already been investigated."

Perhaps he sees some relevance, that you don't. I have found a good many of Salisburyboys posts informative, especially in the "Police State" thread. Your example is an oversimplistic generaliztion.

12/8/2005 3:41:03 PM

Quote :

"you know this ia a privately owned site, right? they can ban you because they don't like your breath. rules. on tww. pffffft."

And I think that itself is a problem. Privately owned sites donot gurantee that someone's FreedomOfSpeech willnot be violated. On the other hand, neither do publicly (as in government owned) forums because they would have to be constantly screened to insure that someone doesn't offend anyone else (the PC police would be on guard). This thread has given me an idea, but I don't know if I could raise enough support to have it implemented.

My idea: to start a publicly funded (not forced through taxes, but funded by private donations) webforum where people could express their ideas without fear of being banned because they don't lock step in majority point of view. Administrators wouldn't be appointed, but voted in by the members. I don't know if that is possible but it seems like a good idea to me.

[Edited on December 8, 2005 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .]

12/8/2005 3:46:29 PM

^ So you want to start your own alternative TWW? Does that mean that you will stop posting here?

12/8/2005 3:50:29 PM

shut the fuck up

you and jonhguth are worse than sali or prostar

12/8/2005 3:52:01 PM

don't worry, you're still the biggest bitch on here

12/8/2005 3:54:23 PM

coming from you, I take that as a compliment.

12/8/2005 3:54:50 PM

ZING!

12/8/2005 3:57:02 PM

Quote :

" So you want to start your own alternative TWW? Does that mean that you will stop posting here?"

It wouldn't be MY alternative, it would be everybodys. It's my idea, but I think it would benefit everyone. Any administrator who abused his priviledges would be voted out. Everyone everywhere could get together and share their ideas without the fear of being persecuted.

12/8/2005 4:05:48 PM

To be perfectly honest, I don't see the big deal here.

What ever happened to "don't click on the thread if the author is salisburyboy" rule?

12/8/2005 4:07:32 PM

I think that you're confusing people not liking you with persecution.

12/8/2005 4:08:21 PM

Quote :

"I think that you're confusing people not liking you with persecution."

Some members on this site are actively campaigning to get me suspended only because I expressed a point of view they didn't agree with. That to me equals persecution.

12/8/2005 4:22:32 PM

i really dont care about proto personally, i just wanted to post yeewah.gif in that thread.

i dont really want to ban salisbury either, but limit his thread ability by a lot. this way he could add relevant craziness in already established threads.

12/8/2005 7:15:21 PM

Quote :

"As usual the persecutors are attacking anyone who doesn't share their point of view. I don't agree with any of what some posters say, but I don't think they should be banned. Forums, particularly ones about politics, are for fostering open discussions about the topics at hand. Can't have much of a discussion if YOU DON'T HAVE OPPOSING POINTS OF VIEW!! You people discrimiHATE against Salisburyboy for merely having a point of view that doesn't line up with yours."

The inherrent problem with this argument is that we're not asking for other people we don't agree with to be banned. For example, I generally do not agree with 95% of what Gamecat, Mathfreak, Kris or Dirty Greek say. Likewise, plenty of people don't like what I have to say, but there's a semblance respect for other posters shared because we all (try to) debate intelligently without consistantly ignoring other people and continuing to spout without adressing the points and comments raised.

Dissent is not what is hated, obnoxious behavior is.

Quote :

"#1: Is my belief (ie, the thoughts of the poster) the standard here? Because I DO believe the majority of the users want to read the things I post. If so, case closed. I haven't broken the "rule"/guideline. "

This despite all evidence to the contrary which is how you conduct your threads as well completely disregarding the overwehlming arguments against you to continue posting your "truths" without even the courtesy of adressing the other posters. This thread here is the most active argument I've ever seen you make.

Quote :

"#2: If the belief of the poster is NOT the standard, then does that mean if 49.5% of the posters don't want to read the content of the post, then that user must be suspended and banned? OF COURSE NOT. Such a rule would mean that only majority views could be posted and expressed. It would be a rule that censors minority viewpoints. That's ridiculous. "

I would settle for you proving that even 10% of the posters here want to read your shit.

Quote :

"Your example is an oversimplistic generaliztion."

And unfortunately far too accurate.

Quote :

"And I think that itself is a problem. Privately owned sites donot gurantee that someone's FreedomOfSpeech willnot be violated. On the other hand, neither do publicly (as in government owned) forums because they would have to be constantly screened to insure that someone doesn't offend anyone else (the PC police would be on guard). This thread has given me an idea, but I don't know if I could raise enough support to have it implemented. My idea: to start a publicly funded (not forced through taxes, but funded by private donations) webforum where people could express their ideas without fear of being banned because they don't lock step in majority point of view. Administrators wouldn't be appointed, but voted in by the members. I don't know if that is possible but it seems like a good idea to me. "

I guarantee you it wont work for the same reason that public (government owned) forums don't work either. Because in the end, someone is still in control

Quote :

"What ever happened to "don't click on the thread if the author is salisburyboy" rule?"

That worked until he realized that since he couldn't get people to read his pet thread, he would make a new thread every time he came up with a new spin on the same conspiracy as well as bttt his old threads

12/8/2005 9:37:19 PM

you motherfuckers make me sick.

12/8/2005 10:35:20 PM

If not for the salisburyboy there wouldn't be anything to talk about. Namecalling is more fun, and what better target in most folks view here. Let him speak his conspiracy theory nonesense, if you don't want to be bothered with him you could just do the obvious thing and not respond. I mean just because he makes some crazy comment in a thread doesn't mean y'all have to pay attention to it. Personally I enjoy the salisburyboy related bashing, it's the funniest thing going here.

12/8/2005 11:54:23 PM

Be he can atleast respond to the shit, or tell us why he so passionately follows this stuff. Hell, he just refutes views by posting other articles non stop. He dosn't even know why he believes in it for that matter; but he expects everyone else to believe it. When they're not even his words. Insane.

12/9/2005 12:53:10 AM

I think the first post of this thread was genius after looking at the two most frequent posters in this thread.

12/9/2005 2:13:22 AM

Shouldn't this be in the feedback section?

12/9/2005 6:46:25 AM

Just now.

12/9/2005 7:24:11 AM

pretty much the most heated debates these days are about how much this place sucks and who is to blame.

well, I guess we can parallel real life sometimes.

not like there's anything better to talk about besides the j00z

12/9/2005 9:24:57 AM

Have yourself a Soap-Box little Christmas,
Post those threads constantly.
Show the world it's all one big conspiracy.
And Have Yourself a Soap-Box Little Christmas, Please

12/10/2005 11:40:41 AM

EarthDogg, dude, you've got to turn off the Christmas music at the store, it's poisoning your brain.

And making me homocidal, incidentally.

12/10/2005 1:20:14 PM

Quote :

"homocidal"

que?

12/10/2005 2:07:28 PM

You heard me. It's turning me into a gay serial killer.

12/10/2005 2:24:13 PM

Well, who hasn't seen that scenario played out during the holiday season?

12/10/2005 4:00:19 PM

Quote :

"you've got to turn off the Christmas music"

...What, and miss Delilah?

12/10/2005 10:31:33 PM