Baden

:up:

And yet we usually get criticised for having too many, especially on the mod team. I believe the reason there's less political discussion now than bef...

Thanks. Deserves a topic as it's requested so much. Off out now for some Italian food.

I mostly feel sorry for him/amused by his silliness on clitoris's. For this previously mentioned issue though: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews...

@"S", considering the fact that you managed to squeeze six pages out of this in a matter of hours, I'd like to hire you to help me sell holy water to ...

Worse shit has happened to better people. And that's a line I've had to use on myself from time to time too.

Just give it a few months of posting in others' discussions please, Wallows. It's no big deal. You still have more discussions than anyone else on the...

You could improve immediately by stopping the self-indulgent whinging. You didn't even answer my concerned PM to you when you were pissing gibberish a...

Anyway, we're off-topic. As usual, I'll leave this open for another little while for any comments on @"räthsel"'s banning and then close it again.

I am an actual editor. It's really funny how people keep doing this :D. But no, I don't work for the New York Times.

No, it doesn't polarize like that. With consistent standards enforced, the content remains of a consistent standard. This is another thing that hasn't...

This site is aimed at adults not children. If someone is ignorant enough to come on a modded forum and think it's OK to call other posters and mods 'f...

Banned @"räthsel" for flaming and ignoring warnings to stop doing so.

If you think someone is trolling you, report it by PM and we'll deal with it. Don't abuse them or the mods or you'll be the one banned.

Lol, lunchtime? Though we could go that route... Who's got the banana?

Disclosing confidential mod practices is a bannable offence (according to a rule I just made up). So, you're banned.

Pffft. Don't take yourself so seriously. I saw a tiny segment as I pointed out above where Peterson got owned and then I made a joke. If Zizek has a t...

"Peterson mopping the floor for his opponent..." There ya go. All fixed now.

This is literally the only part I watched. "Who are these Marxists?! Name one!" Peterson's ice cream in the desert look is priceless as his whole cult...

He does have a talent for interpreting badly-written ad copy, so he has my vote too.

Pretty much exactly as I thought then. Saves me watching it to find out. :lol:

Hang on though, Angela is a guy or the angel is God or? Confusing...

Don't know but this is what I saw after clicking on to the home page. /uploads/resized/files/co/cwv027o9dhcwpxdc.jpg Who could resist that?

I took the decision and I agree it's a debateable one. But one thing it was not intended to be was a signal to @"Wallows" that he's not welcome here.

There needs to be a pretty good reason for zombeying months-old discussions. And if it looks like a bump by the OP starter, we'll probably close it as...

Double-simulataneouslicitously.

Doubly so, as being stereo-mentalic, we can direct both our disses simultaneously at you.

I diss by Limrik: There was a young poster called S An unphilosophical pest To Pond he was crude All actin' the dude 'Til Baden did diss him to rest A...

By the way, I apologize to anyone who had to read that arrogant-sounding reveal. It was said in a moment of high irritation with someone I now just bl...

I can't maintain any coherence past three no matter how I try to mentally organize it. As for auditory impression, I can visualize with or without tha...

:lol: You win that one.

The main point is we think in stereo whereas @"S" and co are stuck in boring mono-mentalicity.

Visually, I can do as far as a triple, presuming 'seeing' the sentences counts as thinking them. My auditories, if I'm trying to deliberately create t...

I wasn't experiencing an auditory effect. I was "seeing" both sentences simultaneously in my mind with maybe a quasi-auditory echo of sorts, but certa...

Funnily enough, I didn't think it was possible until I tried. I really doubt that's it. Although I don't object to the sentiment. :smile:

No, I can do that too.

There's no hard and fast rule. And you'll be asked to slow down if it becomes an issue. But off the top of my head, I can't imagine why anyone would n...

:up:

If you do that again, any one of us will ban you at this point. You need to take on the same level of responsibility every other member does.

And what @"S" said.

Well, I don't post discussions by choice, so I suppose it's harder for me to relate to why it's so important. But maybe negotiate with jamalrob about ...

Anyway, my advice, take a moment, think about it. It might not seem such a big deal then.

You're taking it personally, but we're doing what we always do which is trying to maintain quality. Tbh you could have gotten yourself banned for all ...

The one that started: "There's a lot of talks around and about as usual about things."? If so, I would be of the opinion it should stay where it is. A...

I used to listen to Zizek a lot but he does tend to repeat stuff to the point where you feel diminishing returns setting inexorably in. Much less so w...

I suspect they suffered from an unfortunate level of agreement.

The forum software's not sophisticated enough for that, unfortunately.

It's feedback, where we are as open as possible, but yes, not a bad idea.

We don't know who anyone is or where they're involved in. Except @"Hanover" who has been outed as Kim Kardashian's bikini waxer.

Slight overreaction there... But ok, bye.