Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Kudistos Megistos

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 151
You must have a poor memory. I clearly remember Unrelated being the reason moderation was needed in the first place.

Oh yes, the forum needs some moderation. We need spambots and people with the wrong amount of chromosomes to be banned.

What it doesn't need is moderator intervention every single time two people disagree.

Anyways you are entitled to you opinion, even though it has no bearing on what the staff decides.

Oh no, it has no bearing.

You'll just realise that I was right six months after making a disastrous decision. That's how things work around here.

I cannot speak for when you joined as I was a year behind you. I do know that much of the time I have been here there has been need for moderators. Being an admin (or moderator) is not a divine calling, but it is a job that I take seriously. Part of that job is to try and make these forums run smoothly, reduce or eliminate flame wars, and try to encourage the main point of this forum; to learn about and improve the Sqeenix games that we all enjoy. Completely Unrelated helps none of these goals and hinders some quite a bit. In my honest opinion completely unrelated is completely useless. Theres a whole fucking internet out there to have squabbles on and read the latest news.

I need to think on this some more.

Clearly you do need to think about it some more.

The forums would be much poorer for having lost CU. The number of posts you've had here suggests that you might miss it too.

CU has also been around for an awfully long time. How come it never caused problems before, but it is now apparently the forum's kryptonite? Don't say that it's because there are more flamewars nowadays, because there aren't. I genuinely don't see any difference between CU now and CU years ago, and yet you seem to think that CU is now the cancer that is killing the qhimm forums. The only cancer killing the forums is this attitude of "I must moderate every single post!". We don't need this attitude. We never needed it before and we don't need it now.

kud, we arent stupid.  It is clear to see that you were the first to try baiting and you did it blatantly, and then when a mod gets pissed you claim it is a conspiracy and bad 'ol seifer needs banning cause he shouldnt be here.

Get real.

I thought I was on ignore.

I also thought that I had adopted a pro-legalisation stance long before you came to the thread. Am I baiting if, after you come to a thread, I continue to make an argument that I was already making?

Completely Unrelated is going to be deleted all because you start harassing the mods every time someone disagrees with you. You're ruining it for everyone.

The hilarious thing is that this is exactly how your fight with Jari started. You were losing a fight that you started, so you started harassing him with PMs, ordering(!) him to get rid of those nasty people. It backfired. Then you started harassing Qhimm to get rid of Jari. It didn't work. Now you're still harassing people through PM whenever you don't get your way. THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS! >:(

It's a shame that CU is going to be deleted. So many people enjoyed coming here and chatting away, having fun. But some people seem determined to destroy everything.

Anyway, regardless of whether CU gets deleted and regardless of whether you have me on ignore or not, I'm putting you on ignore. In the unlikely event that your behaviour doesn't get the board deleted, it will be a breath of fresh air to be able to have a thread where we can talk about a controversial subject without resorting to name calling.

Ignore is a voluntary thing that I can not enforce.

I see a few ways this will play out:

1. Everyone decides to play nice. Stop calling people idiots and whiners. Nothing happens.
2. People still call each other names and come whining to me when someone calls them something. I get pissed off and either, A: Ban everyone that was involved wether or not they started it, B: Remove completely unrelated entirely, C: Deny access to unrelated for everyone involved.

I would much rather the first option happened, but at this point it does not matter much to me. Completely Unrelated has nothing to do with the goals of this forum so it is of no significant loss to me. Just means less work for the staff.

Or you could make a rule against harassing the mods, if that's the problem.

Or you could just ignore people who spam PMs. Your main concern seems to be lightening your own workload, so this should work wonders.

You keep on acting like being a moderator is some kind of divine calling. It isn't. You don't have to do it and you don't have to take notice of every single PM sent because of every little squabble. The third thing in this thread that grinds my gears if you acting as if you're forced to do this job and then taking it out on all of us.

What confuses me is that for most of the first year or so that I was here, the forum worked perfectly well with hardly any moderation at all. There were no active global mods in them days; they just came when there was a serious issue. Now there are four of you and apparently the workload is so great that you're all having nervous breakdowns. I don't get it.

Blame the academics, blame whoever you want.  But like I said in another topic, the blame lies with those weak enough to lay it.  If you want more people to be honest, then take the stand yourself, and learn to defend yourself in arguments such as these.  You persuade people, not by logic along, but by believing in yourself and by never giving up.

But that sounds like hard work! :(

Falls?  They already are in the hands of extremists.

They're in the hands of incompetent morons, but not extremists. The government has been infiltrated by them, but they can't do whatever they want; Pakistan isn't like Iran.

The Israelis are the only people on the planet who have a proven method of dealing with terrorism.  They didn't torture prisoners, they didn't stage a Mission Accomplished party on an aircraft carrier, but they did make damn sure that the Palenstinians know that their plight is a result of their reliance on terrorism

Something that a lot of people in the West refuse to acknowledge. Actually, I think that the Israelis are a little soft on the Palestinians; the people of Gaza voted for a party who says that Muslims should wipe the Jews* off the face of the Earth. They knowingly voted for a party with genocidal ambitions. The German people, on the other hand, had no idea how far the Nazis were planning to go, but they get far less sympathy. I wonder why that could be?

*Please note that the passage in question refers to "Jews". Not "Zionists" and not "Israelis". It refers to all Jews.

Just because it feels good cutting yourself doesn't mean you should do it.



Whether it's a little or a lot, it's still not good to do something harmful to yourself.

Maybe, but people should have the right to do it.

while Christians aren't quite as crazy, there are a lot of Moderate Christians who refuse to condemn the crazy power-seeking shit assholes like Rupert Murdoch do, because fellow Christians would never do something so horrible, would they?

Wait a minute, are you saying that "moderate" Muslims don't do this? I'm not sure what the situation is like over there, but in Europe, Christians are far more likely to condemn other Christians than Muslims are to condemn other Muslims. I remember that something like a third of British Muslims thought that 9/11 was a smear campaign and expressed sympathy with the suicide bombers in London, and Britain isn't an unusual case. I can guarantee that you won't see such a huge proportion of Norwegian Christians saying that Anders Breivik was a pretty cool guy.

Also, Muslims don't have the military or economic might to cause a lot of havoc (yet)

Not yet. But they will eventually if people refuse to take a firm stand with countries like Iran, or if Pakistan (a nuclear power) falls into the hands of extremists.

I suspect that this is one of the reasons why the US gives so much support to Israel. As long as it has American support and a decisive military edge, it can contain the other nations in the Middle East. It doesn't matter how politically correct and pacifist the Western leaders are; if countries like Iran start to develop nuclear weapons and look dangerous, the Israelis won't hesitate to deal with the problem.

A read a biography or Mark Twain, and apparentally people were complaining about the dirty Irish 150 years ago.  You know, those people who just look different, not like us, with their strange foreign religion, who have too many kids, and are taking all our jobs, and who refuse to integrate with our good Protestant mainstream society?

I really don't give a fuck what people believe when they come here (provided they aren't trying to kill us), because I know that, in two generations, they will all be drinking and fucking and trying to stay sane in our intrinsincally corrupting society, just like the rest of us.  A society allows a little moral corruption innoculates its inhabitants against the greater corruptions of fanaticism and genocide.

Unfortunately, there are certain religious groups that actually become less integrated the longer they spend in Western countries. The children are more extreme than their parents. I won't say what these groups are, because that would be racist. ::)

Totally forgot where I was going with this.

I don't think any of us know, either.

If it isn't in place already, can you make new users (either two week old accounts or less than 30 posts or so) see a "be sure to check the FAQs/rules before posting" before they start a new topic or reply? We get a lot of pointless repeat questions.

If smf can't do it then we'll just have to live with it.

I can't comment on the feasibility of this, but I can say it will have no effect; they'll ignore it the same way people ignore terms and conditions forms. Noobs gonna noob

I don't get why people say it causes NO harm whatsoever

They're wrong, of course.

But it grinds my gears when people act as if the whole argument for legalising it will crumble if this point is proven wrong. It's a straw man. It's bad form to only argue against the weakest point that is made in favour of a proposition.

Smoking weed can cause symptoms similiar to some forms of schizophrenia, and maybe screw with someones inhibitions (like not stealing things), but you have to smoke a lot of it.  I mean, bags and bags of it weekly, all the time.

And since it's less addictive than alcohol, these problems are less common.

I was once persuaded by a flatmate to let an ex-bandmate of his crash at our apartment for a few weeks.  The whole fucking time he was there, his girlfriend, who bought his weed, was there, and the only thing I ever saw them do was smoke pot in my bathroom, eat, sleep, and attempt to be furtive while screwing behind the couch.  They did this all day, every fucking day, for as long as they lived there.  And when they finally left, I found that my Super Nintendo and my entire collection of SNES games had found there way to the local used game store, along with 3/4 of my CD collection and 3 binders full of DVDs, PS1 games, and PS2 games, all of which I had let him or his girlfriend borrow on one occasion or another.  When I asked him if he was done with my stuff (after I bought what was left of it back from the store), he smiled and said he'd have it for me in a tommorow.

So, just like living with an alcoholic? Except with fewer fights, I presume?

break weeds status as a gateway drug, since it will be normal everyday people who grow it and sell it, not murderous mexican meth lords.


What really grinds my gears about the "it's a gateway drug" argument is that it's only a gateway drug because it's illegal. The argument that it must be kept illegal because a situation that only occurs when it's illegal is utterly incomprehensible. I can't think of anything more backwards. You may as well just say "it should be kept illegal because the people who use it are criminals!". It's the same "logic".

I doubt that will happen though.  If we didn't have the weed boogeyman to be afraid of, then we might start wondering why most of the drugs most commonly abused in the USA are perscription drugs.

And I'm sure that the pharmaceutical industry wouldn't want people to think about that...

Don't blame China, anywhere that has parents is bound to have its share of terrible parents. And anywhere that has internet gaming has its share of ridiculous gaming addicts.

This phenomenon of parents getting rid of their children in order to play MMOs does seem to be more common in East Asia, although there are a few cases in the West.

This German woman, for example, killed her children so she could play WoW. She faced a 15-year sentence. One wonders whether the sentence for repeated child murder would have been so lenient if the father had been the killer.

This rings true for me: in South Yorkshire, where I was brought up, and Cambridge, where I studied, the population was overwhelmingly white and decidedly non-racist. It wasn't until I moved to London (where ethnic minorities are more common) that I actually started seeing racism in the flesh. Of course, there are other issues at play - social class is more polarized in London, and I think the city's claustrophobia can make people quite hostile generally, but the fact remains that until I'd moved here, I'd rarely met people openly, brazenly racist.

This is surprisingly like my experience, although I was at the superior university and grew up on the superior side of the Pennines (we have another thing to be rivals over!) the only difference is that I've never had the misfortune to live in London.

I grew up in a very homogeneous town. There were a few Irish people and a very small number of Chinese people and that was it. In some primary school classes, every single child had blond hair and blue eyes (which is quite astonishing; you would even expect that in Scandinavia). There was no racial tension and the BNP got no real support when they decided to run in a council election.

Oxford isn't really homogeneous, but most of the non-white people are Chinese, and racist groups don't tend to be bothered about them. I did, however, encounter some people from London who assumed that anyone from a homogeneous northern town would be racist. Hilarious.

Interestingly, there has been a surge of immigration from Poland to my hometown over the past few years. With this surge of immigration has come a surge of xenophobia and, in some cases, violence towards said immigrants. There seems to be a "these Eastern Europeans, where are they flocking from?" mentality developing. There were no such stories when non-British/Irish/Chinese people were only 1% of the population there, even though the media would have us believe that, back then, ethnic minorities should have been in extreme danger.

General Discussion / Re: Wanting a Tattoo
« on: 2011-07-29 17:26:24 »
Personally, I find names more weird for tattoos than symbols.

Surely that depends on what the symbol is?

For example, aside from my philosophical objections, I'd see a tattoo of a crucifix or a star of David as being less weird than a name. But this is a symbol from a video game. That's far more weird than a name.

Every time he explains to someone what his tattoo is and he's not at some weeaboo convention, they're going to give him very strange looks. Having "mom" tattooed on his arm would be less weird.

This is not a frequently asked question.  moved to general for now.

Isn't it?

It seems to be to be asked very frequently indeed, and I've lost count of the number of times it has had to be explained to people that it can only work in very specific situations (ie. on the swirling clouds background).

Of course, having the question in the FAQ board won't stop people from continuing to ask it...

Don't they shoot babies out of those T-shirt cannons at concerts in China?

No, they fire them out of cannons to control riots. It's how they deal with all the civil unrest.

I see the end of completely unrelated coming soon.


Because one individual, who shouldn't even be here, seeing as he has been permabanned 27 times, is extremely antisocial?

I don't see why we should all suffer the consequences of his actions. The easiest solution to this little problem (a storm in a teacup if there ever was one; it will be forgotten in a week) would be to ban the person who is on a lifetime ban.


And now that I think about it, is there even a problem?

If we can just put people on ignore whenever they disagree with us, there should be no more flame wars. That's a far less drastic solution.

DLPB: stop being a useless tool.

Aaaaaand you just went on his ignore list

Also, note that Seifer whines about people making ad hominem attacks, but feels no shame in saying:

The sheer delusion on this matter is approaching psychotic. Hopefully that isn't from the over indulgence on their favourite drug.  :-D

That couldn't be hypocrisy, could it? Surely not!

I can't help but picture a totalitarian regime whose flag reads "Do what is healthy for you...or else"

I think they'd look something like this:

Which reminds me...

In Britain, the political system is so anti-drug that the Labour government a couple of years ago fired a "scientific advisor" for refusing to lie about the dangers of drugs.

They weren't very happy about him producing this:

Kud, if you are wondering why you aren't getting direct responses from me, it is because you have been on ignore.  I do that in this section from now on with regards to yourself.

I had a look at your last  post (can't help the odd peep) to see if you had mended your ways but sadly found another ad hominem.  So you will remain on my ignore list until you learn.

Oh lulz, Seifer puts anyone who disagrees with him on his ignore list. And can't help but peek to see whether anyone has said anything. So he'll probably read this. :mrgreen:

It shows how little interest he has in debate ;D

Guise, I think we should stop disagreeing with Seifer. I foresee another "incident" happening if his lack of knowledge or critical thinking ability keeps being pointed out, and the mods will ban us for "baiting" him by not telling him that he's right.

yes the wrong one argument, the problem with that is, for every innocent person who is killed by accident, many more have died because of the criminal(s).  That's the ultimate flaw with the "wrong one" argument.

It assumes that 1 innocent person is worth all the innocents who are the victim of crime because there is no deterrent whatsoever, and nothing to stop reoffending.

If we stopped worrying about the "wrong one", we'd set a very dangerous precedent. It should be obvious that saying that innocent people can be executed by the state "for the greater good" might lead to a few problems.

I take great comfort in knowing that this liberal experiment which has doomed my country will one day come to a sad end.  The death penalty will return and when it does, we are never goin' back again.

I can only think of one plausible scenario in which the death penalty could be reintroduced here, and I very much doubt you'd like it.

The only people I ever see defending cannabis use and legalisation, are the people who have deluded themselves into believing that Cannabis is good for them, and are themselves, the end user.

Well, I have some bad news for you!

I think it's unhealthy, like any psychoactive drug, but I still think it should be legal. There are worse drugs that are perfectly legal, and in any case, I think that people should be free to abuse their own bodies in any way they wish.

The death penalty does deter, and at the least it makes sure dealers cant come out and do it again.  That's a fact.  Most dealers come out and carry on.  That's 1 thing the anti death penalty whiners cant argue with.

Have fun catching them. And have fun when you eventually execute the wrong person.

more lung disease and more problems on the roads as ever increasing numbers of people take up the drug.

lolno  ;D

Legalisation takes away the allure of the drug

Cannabis is small beans.  The way you stop drug dealing (and I mean the top class drugs like Amphetamine/heroin or the ones who bring sh*t loads of cannabis into UK) is to execute the dealers. Like China does.

Hardened and habitual criminals are missing the parts of the brain that tells them that they'll get caught. No penalty will act as a deterrent to people who don't think about the potential consequences of their actions.

And enjoy all the assorted legal problems that you'd have to deal with if you reintroduced the death penalty and applied it to organised (and therefore very wealthy) criminals.

Of course, we are too soft for that.  Legalisaing a drug is simply saying you have failed to govern properly.  I suppose we should legalise heroin next and legalise murder too.  If you are legalising a drug to stop criminals, then you have failed to maintain law.

Except the drug should never have been illegal in the first place. The governments who made it illegal are the ones who failed to govern properly.

Face-saving is the most destructive phenomenon in politics. Never admit that you were wrong! Continue with failed policies!

You should join the Labour party.

And legalising won't put them all out of business, far from it, it will mean black markets for th drug which will be cheaper than the tax the gov. shove on it.

Just like there are huge black markets for tax-free alcohol and cigarettes? Oh wait; they're relatively small in comparison. Most people are willing to pay taxes for booze and cigarettes, even poor people.

I really fail to understand where this rosy picture of people dancing around in circles singing songs and clapping, holding hands, comes from when this argument of legalisation crops up.  It is short sighted.

It comes from seeing the success in places where it has been legalised and where all your Daily Mail arguments have been proven wrong.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 151