Messages

1

Completely Unrelated / Re: Is It Realistic?

« on: 2009-06-22 10:40:33 »

And Seifer started the slut debate by claiming that clothing choices reflected personality.

Choice of clothing do reflect personality to some extent in real life.  Not so much in fiction, because strictly speaking, the characters themselves are not the ones that chose their clothing.

Personality? Really? Choice of clothing is a choice, often influenced by aesthetic or sociological concerns. For example, a person concerned about the more unfair aspects of globalisation might care less about the appearance of their clothing than whether it were fair trade. Similarly, there are all kinds of t-shirts that may reflect various interests people may have. By contrast personality is pretty much ingrained, though there are some conscious choices that affect it - one's choice to use or not use various illicit substances, for example. I don't really see how such traits as how outgoing someone is would affect their choices in clothing. Maybe you meant something else by "personality."

But yeah, implying sexual promiscuity from choices of clothing, which is what the thread quickly devolved into, is pretty absurd. In this case, it's quite plausible that Tifa shows skin because it gets her better tips as a barmaid. That'd be pretty plausible in the real world too.

2

Completely Unrelated / Re: ATTN Seifer Almasy

« on: 2009-06-22 10:32:26 »

I haven't signed into MySpace in like two years dood; what you see there isn't exactly a reflection of who I am currently. (I still sympathise with anarchism but let's face it, it's never going to happen in our lifetime, so advocating it is kind of pointless). I am kind of flattered that you feel like stalking me this much though.

And she's been in a relationship for like the last five years, otherwise I'd have made a pass at her myself by now.

3

Completely Unrelated / Re: ATTN Seifer Almasy

« on: 2009-06-22 09:57:47 »

On a side note, Cassandra Leo, I feel that Skrewdriver is an overrated artist

I would not disagree with you here.

that anyone who claims to be an anarchist is retarded

I am not actually an anarchist despite my custom title, though I sympathise with many of anarchism's principles. My custom title refers to the comic book character from which I derive my name.

your managing of internet communtities isn't anything to boast about. If you've dedicated that much of your life to it by the time you're 25, you should probably re-evaluate your life decisions.

Nah, the internet's pretty damn important for activism dood. I'm convinced I've built the initial foundations of a fulfilling life.

Furthermore, if you look closely at what MrAdults was saying and how it was being presented, you've become the victim of a very clever troll. And the age range that was presented was mocking you, not to be taken seriously as you have done.

I know for a fact that he is giggling at your child like justifications, and the very fact that you feel you must attempt them.

Oh noes, I have been trolled on the internets. After sticking up for someone else's trolling. brb, committing suicide.

or not.

4

Completely Unrelated / Re: ATTN Seifer Almasy

« on: 2009-06-22 09:37:55 »

V, you can drag this into a massive debate on human philosophy, but that's another form of misdirection. If you have to take something this far to justify the antisocial, immature behavior exhibited in the thread to begin with, it seems to completely defeat the point, and simply produces more angry flailing in the wind.

How is pointing out that growth comes from suffering a form of misdirection? I explicitly said the behaviour wasn't "mature", so I don't see how I'm misdirecting anything. My point is that getting as worked up over it as you are, or this guy:

Everyone else beside MrAdults: Eat all the dicks.

has been, is pretty absurd. And no, calling someone out on their threats of violence or laughing at their constant bouts of anger is not "antisocial." It's what most human beings would do in a similar situation. Maybe most of them wouldn't make a thread about it in public, but they'd respond to the threats in private or request for a staff member to deal with the problem. Bandito simply chose to take the approach he felt was likely to generate the most humour.

Indeed, the conflict should have been between two people - this thread was in response to threats of violence from Seifer, which was in response to Bandito pissing him off, which was in response to Seifer's attitude over something or other. Like I said, both sides are wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and so forth - in the end the behavior in this thread is still not justified. And, yes, calling someone out in a thread like this is childish, especially in making a public display out of it. Perhaps not on the level of a 6 year old, but it's definitely something a 12-16 year old would do.

I thought this was essentially a semantic argument, but apparently not. There are constant cases of people who were much older calling out actual threats in person. I believe people such as Alexander Hamilton and Alexander Pushkin have died as a result of them. It's the sort of thing people of all ages do; most people only "outgrow" it if they become pacifists or are so naturally submissive that they simply don't bother to respond to provocation, though most people won't take it as far as an actual gunfights because when push comes to shove, most people don't mean what they say.

Or perhaps there's no getting through to the aggressors in this thread, which is partly why Seifer is gone - but I trust the rest of us appreciate the truth of what's happened here, and I hope the mods/admins take a more aggressive stance on nipping these things in the bud in the future.

Should it really be the responsibility of mods/admins to cater to the whims of emotionally unstable people such as Seifer, even if they are contributing to hacking projects? As someone who's managed countless internets communities throughout the years, my experience is that catering to the whims of the emotionally unstable just results in the entire community being run according to the whims of the emotionally unstable. The mods could ban Bandito just because Seifer and a couple of others have a problem with him, but where does it stop? Do they ban everyone whom Seifer has a disagreement with? The thought is absurd. Alternatively, they could close threads like this one, but that would only direct the conversation elsewhere. Certainly a revision of the rules can be made, but any alteration of the rules that would prevent someone from making a thread calling someone out over their constant threats of violence seems to me so draconian as to forbid the creation of any thread that might even potentially offend someone. Maybe you have some ideas for more constructive rules, but from the way you've been ranting about other people's conduct throughout this entire thread, it sounds to me like you want politeness to be enforced.

Feel free to irrationally justify your behavior and make aggressive statements against me henceforth

lol, and where have I been doing that?

5

Completely Unrelated / Re: ATTN Seifer Almasy

« on: 2009-06-22 08:46:06 »

What you say I imply is not at all what I imply. Whether this is intentional misdirection, or due to the way you've chosen to interpret my words, I cannot say. What I can say, is that it's a ridiculous cause to attempt to defend the maturity of the attackers in this thread, least of all Bandito. If you click back to page 1, there, you'll notice he's initiating a charade toward Seifer with the mock goal to engage him in physical combat, not to mention all of the aggressive undertones sprinkled in the posts preceding and inside of this thread. I have not insulted his Bandito's maturity in any way, however - I have pointed out that there is a distinct lack of maturity in his behavior, at least as seen in this thread.

Should you find the nature of such a thread mature, you have a great deal of growth to accomplish. For that, I do not fault you, but others should not have to suffer because you, or anyone else, has not yet realized the true nature of social courtesy. Such a simple, fundamental axiom applies here: "Two wrongs don't make a right".

Disagreements will always be made, and conflicts will happen, but this thread, or anything like it, should never be the end result.

What you say I imply is not at all what I imply. Whether this is intentional misdirection, or due to the way you've chosen to interpret my words, I cannot say.

(Incidentally, I apparently misinterpreted yours; perhaps I read too much subtext into your responses).

I have never said Bandito, or indeed anything in this thread, was perfectly mature. The "perfectly mature" thing would be to keep reminding Seifer that his temper is simply digging him into further holes, or simply to abstain from commenting at all. However, the "perfectly mature" action does not always bring the kind of self-reflection necessary for a true personality change. We can tell Seifer to get a hold of his temper as much as we want, but no matter how often we tell him to do so, this will not make him realise his faults if he is unwilling to admit they exist. As I said, I went through a very similar sequence of actions on another message board long ago; what ultimately drove me to the realisation was that I was suffering the same kind of abuses at the hands of others as a direct result of my own actions. It was only after a period of particularly severe abuses that I finally came to this realisation; had I not received those abuses, I would never have undergone the period of self-reflection necessary for me to learn this lesson. As a result, I am actually grateful to the people whose "childish" actions eventually forced me to this realisation.

No, the term of yours with which I brooked disagreement was "childish," because of its absurd severity; it implies the behaviour of a six-year-old, which is naturally overcome with age. Clearly this is not the case, as anyone will be able to determine by simply observing the world in which we live, rife as it is with all kinds of absurd intrigue that make the behaviours in this thread look downright civilised. It is "childish" to sleep with a teddy bear; it is not "childish" to engage in behaviours which are carried out by humans of all ages. Grossly destructive? Often. Lacking in warmth? Probably. Bullying? Maybe. Childish? No.

My disagreement with your posts has nothing to do with the fact that I "have not yet realised the true nature of social courtesy," and I find your implication that I have not to be particularly insulting coming from someone who presumes such an advanced degree of compassion for others. I simply feel that a society in which everyone feels the necessity to tiptoe around offending one another to be completely anathematical to my principles; it reeks of the absurd kind of political correctness that gets people censured for using "man" rather than "person" as a job description.

Your assertion that "others should not have to suffer" is naïve at best. Suffering is, more often than not, what brings personal growth. I am not saying that suffering should be deliberately inflicted in all cases, but I am saying that its infliction is not in all cases socially destructive. Sometimes it's actually necessary.

That said, of course there's no guarantee that Bandito will respond to his treatment here by learning the lesson he so urgently needs to learn. But there's no social responsibility on anyone here to treat him with kid gloves just because he apparently has a lot of growth to do.

6

Completely Unrelated / Re: ATTN Seifer Almasy

« on: 2009-06-22 08:09:37 »

On the note of childishness, I'm not entirely fond of misdirection, so I might as well point it out - I never even implied that Ryu's post was antagonistic, or that a lack of polite form indicated a post was "childish". What does indicate such, among many things, is a blatant lack of consideration for the implications or effect of one's post in any conversation.

On the note of childishness, I'm not entirely fond of misdirection, so I might as well point it out - I never even implied that you implied that Ryu's post was antagonistic, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to respond as though I, or anyone else for that matter, had accused you of saying otherwise. You did dismiss the majority of posts in this thread as "childish" shortly after you criticised me for not being perfectly polite in my opening response to Seifer, so I presumed the charges were related; I apologise for making the assumption. In any case, tell me, what in any of Bandito's posts in this thread is a "personal attack", as you have claimed elsewhere in the thread? He opened this thread by pointing out statements Seifer made and suggesting that he should back those statements up in real life. How is that a personal attack, or for that matter, even particularly antagonistic? Seifer has responded to this by flaming him in virtually every post he has made in this thread, ironically while accusing Bandito of "flaming." The vast majority of what Bandito has done in response has been to turn most of Seifer's statements in on themselves, and in some cases he has actually given him some genuinely helpful advice that, if followed, would have saved a Seifer a lot of grief ("grow a pair," "If you do not want people to see a statement of yours, DO NOT POST IT"). Again, I do not see this as particularly antagonistic. So who exactly is being "childish"? Seifer could just abstain from posting in this thread if he wanted to, or he could simply have politely declined the offer, both of which would have provided Bandito with absolutely no ammunition for an argument and thereby saved Seifer a lot of grief.

Moreover, just because a post is not phrased as politely as possible, as many others in this thread are not, does not mean that it is created with "a blatant lack of consideration for the implications or effect" it may have. Should people be required to tiptoe around expressing themselves just because a poster has shown himself or herself to be incapable of taking criticism? There's no rule on the internet sparing people's feelings. Indeed, sometimes causing offence is the best way to induce a positive change in another individual. Certainly, if it is done often enough for precisely the same reason, an intelligent individual will be able to see the common thread in cases in which he is offended. There is a very common trend in the exchanges in which I have seen Seifer participate: someone disagrees with him; he takes offence and begins to hurl insults; he is both mocked and presented with serious advice for doing so; he responds to both with further insults; repeat cycle until he feels need to leave forum. This is effectively how it proceeded on TLS, and it appears to be how it proceeded here (although I have admittedly not read all posts in this thread). Life essentially presents us with the same lesson repeatedly until we learn from it. At some point Seifer is going to have to learn deal with honest disagreement, or even a fair bit of mockery, without utterly blowing up as he has done here in thread after thread here. I only learnt to deal with such matters through a process of baptism by fire on the Internet; thus I cannot see antics like the ones in this thread as particularly harmful in the long term.

That said, I don't doubt that Bandito almost certainly doesn't have such noble goals in mind with his posts; he had seen little reason to believe that Seifer would respond to this thread by doing anything other than flaming him and demanding his removal, as he predictably did. But how is he being the "childish" one here by laughing at Seifer's constant temper tantrums or giving Seifer the genuinely helpful advice to "grow a pair"? You stated in your OP that he was likely to become an "anti-social, delusional sociopath" if people continued laughing at such behaviour from him. Don't you think you might be engaging in the slippery slope fallacy, or that that's a little harsh? Bandito seems intelligent enough to be able to tell the difference between laughing at someone's constant temper tantrums on the internet and the behaviour of a remorseless socipoath. Why does he have a social responsibility to treat Seifer politely in the off-topic forum, where Seifer can just ignore it?

In short to sum up my actual feelings on the matter (from elsewhere):

These people are very slippery and easy to be antagonized by if you don't recognize their petty tactics, so I really can't totally blame Seifer. He's probably learned a lesson from it, but such lessons can be learned in a far more civil manner, so I see no truly viable justification for the attackers in that thread.

I have no doubt that if Seifer had taken the high road and not responded here, they would have continued following him around antagonizing him in every thread, which was having visible effects on how irritable he was with other members. To which I can also not wholly blame him - he was feeling a desperate need to prove himself after being repeatedly shat upon by this mob.

I'm fairly certain he hasn't learned a lesson at all, since as far as I am aware he has accepted no responsibility for engaging in precisely the kind of behaviour for which he has criticised others. He could easily have defused this entire situation by admitting that he overreacted in various threads and that he had often done things which he had criticised others for doing. Had he done that, I am thoroughly convinced that the vast majority of people who have been criticising him would have accepted that there was little chance of further manipulation resulting in the desired response, and therefore would have simply given up responding to him.

You speculate that people "would have continued following him around antagonizing him in every thread," yet fail to provide a single example of this alleged antagonism. I have reviewed most of Bandito's posts toward Seifer in the last several weeks, and the vast majority are considerably less antagonistic than any post in this thread, and simply consist of him rebutting his points. There are a few that could be considered as questionable, but Seifer has rebutted to Bandito with language at least as severe, so I can see no particular grievous offence in these cases. guitar_dudester you might have a point with, but seriously, one person is not a "mob," as you claimed in the quoted section and have claimed elsewhere in this thread. I can't even find anyone else who posted anything questionable in this thread and also posted between the two times this place has been linked on TLS. Perhaps there are users I am simply unaware of whose post history I have not searched, but in any case I am simply responding to the evidence which I have reviewed.

In summary, what I take issue with in all of your above characterisations, and the primary reason I have written such a lengthy rebuttal, is your implication that people are being in any way "childish" by responding to Seifer's constant flaming with anything other than politeness, or that "almost no one in this thread has demonstrated" the ability "to conduct [themselves] on the internet." Certainly it is not nice for people to respond to his poorly conceived arguments by mocking them, but as far as I'm aware there's no rule that people have to be nice here; just that they have to refrain from flaming, which the vast majority of responses in this thread have done by every operative definition with which I'm familiar. It may be regrettable if Seifer chooses to leave the forum because he feels he has been unfairly treated in this thread and elsewhere; however, in taking offence at behaviours in which he himself has engaged on numerous counts all across this forum, he is the only one whom I can consider to have been behaving "childishly." Certainly, you can feel free to criticise Bandito and others for driving him off when this is a forum primarily presented to hacking projects. However, that is not what you have done here; you have directly insulted their maturity instead. I find this to be highly questionable.

edit: I should add that, on rereading this thread further, I suspect we may have completely different operational definitions of the word "antagonistic."

7

Completely Unrelated / Re: Is It Realistic?

« on: 2009-06-22 07:28:30 »

Which character did you do it to then? I'm just curious, don't tell me it was Cloud or Barret

It wasn't, and this line of discussion has been followed as far as it's going to go.

And Seifer started the slut debate by claiming that clothing choices reflected personality.

8

Completely Unrelated / Re: Is It Realistic?

« on: 2009-06-22 04:32:12 »

So you did jerk of to this image?

nope, try again

Speaking of social intuition and sensibility... mentioning you used to jerk off to videogame characters on a forum with people you don't really know, usually in the "less than great idea" category.

If I particularly cared what people thought of the person I was five years ago, I wouldn't have done it :p

9

Completely Unrelated / Re: Is It Realistic?

« on: 2009-06-22 04:19:53 »

I'm quite sure you'll note that that post explicitly says that I no longer do that, and haven't for at least five years. And more importantly, where does it say anything about anyone fapping to character models? As MrAdults pointed out, character models are hardly the only representation of video game characters out there.

10

Completely Unrelated / Re: ATTN Seifer Almasy

« on: 2009-06-22 04:04:36 »

Why is it natural for him to be defensive? He could just admit that yes, he's been overly quick to react, that yes, he's done a lot of the stuff he's accused others of doing, that yes, he hasn't always thought things through. In fact, if he admitted those things, all the problems he is currently facing will go away.

I will be the first to admit that I could have phrased my opening post more politely, but if he requires politeness before he is willing to listen to others, then the underlying problem with which he has not yet dealt will not have been solved. Most of the posts in here are not flames. They may be a little bit blunt but most of them stop shy of personal insults; they remain simple denunciations of specific actions, which are not the same thing as personal insults at all.

And dismissing posts as "childish" just because they aren't phrased particularly politely doesn't speak particularly well of your attitude either.

11

Completely Unrelated / Re: Is It Realistic?

« on: 2009-06-22 03:41:39 »

You jerk of to 3D models? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAhahaahahhahahahhahaAHHHAHAHAHAHA
That deserved a laugh...I can model a nice FF7 character model if you want. How do you want her to look...pathetic..that is like jerking of to one of my speakers...

Incidentally, who is this post directed at? I don't think anyone has ever claimed to jerk off to 3d models. Unless I'm missing something.

12

Completely Unrelated / Re: ATTN Seifer Almasy

« on: 2009-06-22 03:39:12 »

How was he being antagonised at all by Ryu's post? Or for that matter, the majority of posts in this thread? As far as I'm aware the only people who can be considered to have "antagonised" him at all are Ammo and guitar_duedester, at least if "antagonised" means anything more severe than "disagreeing with", and even then, Ammo is mostly just responding to Seifer's insults.

Seifer has said much worse about other people, so I assumed he was capable of taking a simple statement (that he was acting like a knob) in stride. Maybe I was naïve to assume that - actually, after reviewing the entirety of this thread, I almost certainly was. But still, pointing out that good advice is good advice shouldn't be construed as "antagonism."

13

Completely Unrelated / Re: Is It Realistic?

« on: 2009-06-22 03:07:03 »

I haven't fapped to video game characters for at least five years. Try again.

14

Completely Unrelated / Re: ATTN Seifer Almasy

« on: 2009-06-22 03:00:19 »

My initial post in this thread was an attempt to help Seifer defuse the amount of antagonism he has to face, but seeing as he responded to that by insulting me I now have no interest in this particular exchange beyond pointing out his rank hypocrisy. I hardly see how pointing out hypocrisy equates to "not knowing how to conduct oneself on the internet."

15

Completely Unrelated / Re: Is It Realistic?

« on: 2009-06-22 02:54:38 »

Pretty typical really. I contribute constructively to a debate about FFVII and the only thing I get from him in return is a flame. And yet, according to him, we're the aggressors.

16

Completely Unrelated / Re: ATTN Seifer Almasy

« on: 2009-06-22 02:52:43 »

He didn't bring us back by starting this thread. None of us had the faintest idea this thread even existed until guitar_dudester91 posted notifying us that this thread existed.

However, blaming either of them for bringing us back is allocating blame erroneously, since had you not been posting in such a transparently dramatic manner there would have been no incentive for any of us to come back here and engage you in confrontation. The only person you have to blame for that is yourself.

17

Completely Unrelated / Re: Is It Realistic?

« on: 2009-06-22 02:51:12 »

Obviously because I have an aesthetic appreciation of the female form, I must be a "basic male."

18

Completely Unrelated / Re: ATTN Seifer Almasy

« on: 2009-06-22 02:49:49 »

Before you go throwing about wild accusations, you may wish to note that Ammo actually wasn't the person who notified us of this thread's existence.

The thread exists, and he wrote it.  or is that too f***ing basic you?

You wrote:

Well people,of qhimms, I hope you are satisfied.  Ammo, has now brought back all the others from life stream forums (which was his intention).  So congratulate him on a job well done.

He didn't bring us back. As far as I know, he doesn't even have an account at TLS, so claiming him making this thread resulted in Lifestream members posting here again is puzzling, to say the least. Surely, if you're going to blame someone, you should at least blame the person who notified us that you still haven't learned how to conduct yourself on the internet.

19

Completely Unrelated / Re: ATTN Seifer Almasy

« on: 2009-06-22 02:42:22 »

Before you go throwing about wild accusations, you may wish to note that Ammo actually wasn't the person who notified us of this thread's existence.

20

Completely Unrelated / Re: Is It Realistic?

« on: 2009-06-22 02:40:58 »

Women dress up like that all the time here. I don't see the big deal, apart from the fact that it's really freaking nice to look at most of the time.

Tifa is a barmaid, it's natural that she'd want to show a little skin. Helps with tips and such. Doesn't make her a slut, much less a hooker.

Also, Tifa is nowhere near the most skimpily dressed FF female, nor is she anywhere near the first to be at least that skimpily dressed. Rosa, Rydia, Terra, Celes, Selphie, Beatrix, Garnet, Yuna, Rikku, Lulu, Fran, Ashe, and Penelo have all been routinely depicted wearing less clothing, or more revealing clothing, than Tifa.

Finally, it's as close to canonically established as possible that Cloud and Tifa have sex under the Highwind, but that doesn't make either of them "sluts," given that they've been in love with each other since their childhood and have only just come to realise each other's mutual affection. Given that the planet, for all they know, is just about to be destroyed, it's pretty natural that they'd want to consummate their relationship.

21

Completely Unrelated / Re: ATTN Seifer Almasy

« on: 2009-06-22 02:34:36 »

Who asked you for your opinion?  This thread shouldn't even be here and nor should she, since she has no intention of contributing to this forum or any of its mods.  She just loves the drama and I have read her ill educated and rather basic posts plastered all over Lifestream (constant sarcasm, constant sly digs, constant intolerance, constant ganging up, constant misrepresentation and a whole host of misdemeanors stemming from pure ignorance and fanboysim).  The only one who needs bollocking here is the creator of this thread.  There isn't any colour here, it is black and white.  This member has already got rid of a few members here, 1 of them long term (he hounded him out.  if you look through his posts you will see what the guy is up to, he has simply latched onto me as his next victim and people ike you help feed him instead of just telling him to piss off. It isn't my problem when somebody refuses to let go.  i did.  Silvers didn't and nor did ammo.  Stop trying desperately to find a way of blaming me for it.  I didn't create threads about members and I won't accept bull sh*t trying to defend the action, make excuses or otherwie play it down.

The problem here lies squarely with the creator of this thread (by his own admission purely for his own kicks) and with other people who come here trying to defend his inexcusable FLAME WARS and goading.

I was told to give silvers a break and give her another chance....she has already blown it.

You do realise Ryu was trying to help you stop looking like a complete and utter knob, right?

Anyway, what you're doing is just exacerbating the situation.

22

General Discussion / Re: For the attention of the admin

« on: 2009-05-31 23:52:22 »

Apparently my last post went completely over your head. You're now the one who's prolonging this by attacking people for simply defending their board. The only reason "continuous posting" is even still happening is because you keep attacking people who simply are here to make sure no one has any misunderstandings about the record being set straight. If you really all understand that Seifer is full of sh*t, then great, there's nothing further on-topic to discuss. If you really want it to end so desperately, then stop attacking us. You called me "someone who seems to not want it to end" - that's a personal attack, and it's blatantly contradicted by the fact that I advised the moderation team, who seem to be MIA, to lock this topic and all further discussion on the topic. As long as TLS or I continue to receive personal attacks in unclosed threads, I will continue to defend them. If you want this "discussion" to stop, then stop posting about it. Or at least, stop attacking people who only want to make sure the record is set straight. The last several post been haven't even been discussing events on TLS, they've just been you arguing with people who want to make sure no one has any misconceptions.

Not to mention, you evaded the question. I asked how anything in this topic equates to "forum harassment," which you explicitly called it in reply #44, or "adding fuel to the fire," which you have used several times. How does simply repeating the truth equate to harassing anyone or prolonging a debate if everyone already agrees with the truth? If there's really nothing to debate in our statements, then you attacking people for simply repeating the truth is prolonging the debate, and could conceivably be construed as harassment as well.

23

General Discussion / Re: For the attention of the admin

« on: 2009-05-31 20:36:47 »

How does anything in this thread equate to harassment or "adding fuel to the fire"? Seifer makes false statements, we correct them. It's his choice to keep bawwwwwing about things that didn't happen. Which, since my first post, he hasn't - in fact, you are the only one continuing this at this point.

24

General Discussion / Re: For the attention of the admin

« on: 2009-05-31 02:51:07 »

Also, I just noticed this edit he made to his last post after my long rebuttal:

by continuing to post saying you're defending yourselves it goes to ruin the reputation of the LS forums.

< it doesnt have one anymore.  It has been sussed out.

lol, other people here don't seem to agree at all.

25

General Discussion / Re: For the attention of the admin

« on: 2009-05-31 01:55:44 »

I ask again, how does posting to correct slanderous misinformation being spread about TLS by members with grudges against anyone from TLS make TLS look bad? I couldn't care less about the drama here or picking a fight with anyone, and I sorely doubt anyone else from TLS does either. What I and others do care about is the fact that someone is flagrantly misrepresenting the events that occurred at TLS in an incredibly self-serving manner. and as long as Seifer continues to post untruths, people from TLS shall continue to correct them. It would probably be to everyone's benefit if this thread and future discussions on the topic were simply locked, but as long as Seifer continues to be allowed to spread his untruths, I can think of no valid reason for anyone from TLS to allow him to do so unopposed.