hahaha3hahaha has been GUESTED

[stahrgazer]

I dont refuse to read any relevant information.

If you refuse to read all information you've requested, you're refusing to review information for relevancy.

It really does explain your sometimes-skewed perspectives.

Anyway, haha, here's the thing about swastikas: the Third Reich used them. In the Third Reich, people blinded themselves to potentially relevant information, because if they did not, they might come to question whether MIGHT (the Nazi Party) was RIGHT. Those who questioned were often brutalized, up to and including the concentration camps that most associate with "killing of Jews" but which killed alot more people than just the Jewish. ANYONE who questioned the might of the Party, who refused to toe the line, was subject to the same cruelties.

After WWII, some people took up some of the causes, including Hitler's famed "Aryans supreme" (interesting, since according to history, Hitler couldn't have been Aryan in the first place - a bit like Harry Potter's Voldemort going after mixed and mudbloods, when he himself was mixed, not pure) which became "white supremists" although at some point in history it becomes hard to tell whether these supremists are neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan, or a hybrid.

So,there's a lot of bad history behind the swastika, history so horrid to contemplate that it's astounding that anyone with "good" intentions thinks the bad history can just be forgotten. And that's where your post comes in... people in the might just can't conceive that anyone who'd post something about the swastika had benevolent (non-malicious) intentions. So, rather than explain, these people used their might to try to ensure you toe the new party line.

[hahaha3hahaha]

I simply posted that I agree your post was trolling and explained why.

Yeah, about 40 times.

[AAFitz]

I dont refuse to read any relevant information.

If you refuse to read all information you've requested, you're refusing to review information for relevancy.

It really does explain your sometimes-skewed perspectives.

Anyway, haha, here's the thing about swastikas: the Third Reich used them. In the Third Reich, people blinded themselves to potentially relevant information, because if they did not, they might come to question whether MIGHT (the Nazi Party) was RIGHT. Those who questioned were often brutalized, up to and including the concentration camps that most associate with "killing of Jews" but which killed alot more people than just the Jewish. ANYONE who questioned the might of the Party, who refused to toe the line, was subject to the same cruelties.

After WWII, some people took up some of the causes, including Hitler's famed "Aryans supreme" (interesting, since according to history, Hitler couldn't have been Aryan in the first place - a bit like Harry Potter's Voldemort going after mixed and mudbloods, when he himself was mixed, not pure) which became "white supremists" although at some point in history it becomes hard to tell whether these supremists are neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan, or a hybrid.

So,there's a lot of bad history behind the swastika, history so horrid to contemplate that it's astounding that anyone with "good" intentions thinks the bad history can just be forgotten. And that's where your post comes in... people in the might just can't conceive that anyone who'd post something about the swastika had benevolent (non-malicious) intentions. So, rather than explain, these people used their might to try to ensure you toe the new party line.

Again, I dont have to read everything you wrote. I read what hahaha wrote, completely and repeatedly, and believe it was trolling. Refusing to read some of the many pms you send has nothing to do with the subject. I dont need your input on the subject. And as I said... I may very well have read them, and simply told you I didnt, in our little exchange.

I think its great that you feel haha was victimized here, and that he follows the forum rules and was really trying to make a real post. Its awesome. You are fighting for what you believe. I just happen to disagree...and dont feel I need your input to make the decision.

Further, hahahas actions after the incident go to show what he is capable of...and if there was any doubt that he might be trolling at first... it was gone after his many responses.

[AAFitz]

I simply posted that I agree your post was trolling and explained why.

Yeah, about 40 times.

Perhaps, but always in response to another poster in some way, or directly questioned. Feel free to report anything you think is actually spam.

[stahrgazer]

I dont need your input on the subject.

Aww, I went from your heroine to ... idunno, your non-information source? Considering you started the pm's to me to glorify and praise and ask me for info, which I kindly supplied, for you to not read or read but say you didn't or.. whatever.

Anyway, as I said, these things explain your sometimes-skewed perspectives and why you continued to repeat inaccurate things about haha's taboo post; that some of my posts in this forum showed you were misquoting or misconstruing if you'd chosen to review them for relevance which obviously you did not, so... just continue toeing your party line, Might will praise you for it.

[AAFitz]

I dont need your input on the subject.

Aww, I went from your heroine to ... idunno, your non-information source? Considering you started the pm's to me to glorify and praise and ask me for info, which I kindly supplied, for you to not read or read but say you didn't or.. whatever.

Anyway, as I said, these things explain your sometimes-skewed perspectives and why you continued to repeat inaccurate things about haha's taboo post; that some of my posts in this forum showed you were misquoting or misconstruing if you'd chosen to review them for relevance which obviously you did not, so... just continue toeing your party line, Might will praise you for it.

I read plenty to make my decision. Here is why I think haha was trolling: His original post, and his posts afterwards, have confirmed it for me. Im sorry if you think I need to read everything you write to make such a decision.

The fact that you dont think they are trolling is well established. That does not mean I have to agree, no matter how much you think you are right. Im certainly not suggesting you need to agree with me. I simply think you are wrong.

What I read, and why I think he is not only capable of trolling, but was trolling:

And the cow complains about others moo-ing?

In a nutshell, I wasn't banned for anything to do with Nazis or trolling, I was banned because medefe agrees with homosexuality and prostitution. I'm going to leave the thread at that.

It is evident both you (AAfitz) and medefe agree with prostitution and/or homosexuality.

Stop being such an analytical prick and stop reading in between the lines! You're replacing the word 'cause' with 'fight', to make it sound barbaric.

Here I just assume he forgot that it was he that used the word fight.

Maybe there are still groups existing today that carry on that line, but what about the ones that fight against things like prostitution and homosexuality- I think those are very fair causes.

All you just proved to me is that you're either a homosexual or a Jew (which I have no problem with, despite common belief).

polls are at 49% say it was unfair...interesting
My question is...how many of these pugfucks have an IQ over 60?

Perhaps he truly was just interested in an interesting debate on the swastika. I like many just happen to think he was trolling.

[stahrgazer]

Perhaps he truly was just interested in an interesting debate on the swastika. I like many just happen to think he was trolling.

Yes, we know, but you still haven't shown reasonable cause other than, "It's debatable but I believe..." Oh wait, you're saying now that he was trolling 3 days before because he got angry about it and posted stuff 3 days LATER.


Um..no... I don't get it. I don't get how what he said later proves that what he said before was trolling, because nothing in what he said 3 days later is, "um, yeah, I was trolling, and I got caught."

Angry protests about being defamed for trolling when he felt he wasn't? Yup. Flaming? Maybe. I'm guessing MeDeFe decided to tolerate some since MeDeFe flamed haha a little in his 'decision.'

Edit: and because that showed MeDeFe could be reasonable, rather than merely hammer-handed, I gave him a smooch.

[hahaha3hahaha]

If I could be bothered searching all your posts for some slightly offensive things that you have said, that would mean I'd be stooping down to your level- which I'm not going to do.

[stahrgazer]

:lol: If I could be bothered searching all your posts for some slightly offensive things that you have said, that would mean I'd be stooping down to your level- which I'm not going to do.

I did that, haha, it's some of the relevant things he asked for that he read, or didn't read, but either way, LIED and claimed not to read or... and are why I went from hero to humbug in *checks time* a little less than 12 hours of repeat posts (which he's continuing up to 3 minutes ago) while about 10 hours ago he claimed he was doing it merely to waste my time, which I had then, and have a little of now, so find it a bit amusing, even if it's technically trolling.

But anyway, did you see what information I gave you about the history of the swastika and why it resonates so badly with some people? I mean, my god, use a swastika and they might think you're homophobic no matter what you say to contrary!

Edit: strike that. I mean, discuss a swastika and you'll be labelled 'homophobic' no matter what you say to the contrary. As we've seen, USING one is quite acceptable to "those".

[AAFitz]

:lol: If I could be bothered searching all your posts for some slightly offensive things that you have said, that would mean I'd be stooping down to your level- which I'm not going to do.

Well, in my defense. It didnt take long... they were all in this thread.. where you are arguing that you are not a troll, and were not trolling.

[stahrgazer]

Well, in my defense. It didnt take long... they were all in this thread.. where you are arguing that you are not a troll, and were not trolling.

Oh, the same thread where you said he's not a troll but was trolling?

[AAFitz]

Well, in my defense. It didnt take long... they were all in this thread.. where you are arguing that you are not a troll, and were not trolling.

Oh, the same thread where you said he's not a troll but was trolling?

Yes.

[hahaha3hahaha]

Well, in my defense. It didnt take long... they were all in this thread.. where you are arguing that you are not a troll, and were not trolling.

Oh, the same thread where you said he's not a troll but was trolling?

Yes.

...on the same thread where you have contributed approximately 1 valid post, and about 8 pages worth of that one post repeated?

[stahrgazer]

...on the same thread where you have contributed approximately 1 valid post, and about 8 pages worth of that one post repeated?

Add, repeatedly twisting your words into something you didn't say, and saying his proof is what you said many days after the initial post, while repeatedly ignoring information that indicates the true meaning, except to say, "it's debatable but I'm positive"

[AAFitz]

Add, repeatedly twisting your words into something you didn't say, and saying his proof is what you said many days after the initial post, while repeatedly ignoring information that indicates the true meaning, except to say, "it's debatable but I'm positive"

Again, I offer no proof of anything... only my opinion on the subject, and my personal reasons for believing it. And yes, everything' debatable, even what some consider known facts.

Feel free to post all my supposed twisting here however, if you somehow think that's relevant. If you think my opinion is incorrect, thats fine. If you think you can prove to me its wrong...thats fine too.

[hahaha3hahaha]

...on the same thread where you have contributed approximately 1 valid post, and about 8 pages worth of that one post repeated?

Add, repeatedly twisting your words into something you didn't say, and saying his proof is what you said many days after the initial post, while repeatedly ignoring information that indicates the true meaning, except to say, "it's debatable but I'm positive"

Yeah, I didn't add that because I don't really care, I'm being careful not to stoop down to his level. But really, the spam was just ridiculous.

[hahaha3hahaha]

On the other hand I want medefe to finish the fight she/he started. If I remember correctly he/she left at the exact time jef and star joined in.

[AAFitz]

Well, in my defense. It didnt take long... they were all in this thread.. where you are arguing that you are not a troll, and were not trolling.

Oh, the same thread where you said he's not a troll but was trolling?

Yes.

...on the same thread where you have contributed approximately 1 valid post, and about 8 pages worth of that one post repeated?

Again, feel free to quote my supposed spam or whatever else. I have only posted in response to other posts, and while some repeat... many are in direct response to the same repeated questions or thoughts. Perhaps it would have just been better to say hey...you were trolling, and not give you the benefit of explaining why...but for me, I thought that would be unfair.

[AAFitz]

On the other hand I want medefe to finish the fight she/he started. If I remember correctly he/she left at the exact time jef and star joined in.

What fight? You posted something, and he vacationed you for trolling, and gave you plenty of reasons why he thought you were. This is not a fight, its just a discussion of why some think the ban was warranted, and why others do not. Its a disagreement. For you its a little more personal because you were the one that got vacationed, but after medefe explained why he banned you... you told him you assumed it was only because he was pro homosexuals and prostitutes. Its reasonable to assume you werent interested in a serious discussion about it...much as he assumed you were not in the original post.

By now everyone has made up their minds, and have their own reasons for doing so...and really... it was just a little vacation for a post, it just happened to be an interesting subject, and while your post is at the center of the discussion, to be honest, I do not think it is as much about you, as you think it is. Certainly it is not a fight, in any case. An argument at best.

[stahrgazer]

Perhaps it would have just been better to say hey...you were trolling, and not give you the benefit of explaining why...but for me, I thought that would be unfair.

Since you won't read the explanations, see where you twisted what he said, and stop twisting them with your repeats, it's still unfair and not right of you, even if you have might on your side.

[AAFitz]

...on the same thread where you have contributed approximately 1 valid post, and about 8 pages worth of that one post repeated?

Add, repeatedly twisting your words into something you didn't say, and saying his proof is what you said many days after the initial post, while repeatedly ignoring information that indicates the true meaning, except to say, "it's debatable but I'm positive"

Yeah, I didn't add that because I don't really care, I'm being careful not to stoop down to his level. But really, the spam was just ridiculous.

Again, what spam? Show me my posts that are not responding to other posts. I post someone else posts, i respond..thats not spam, and since its about the topic... its certainly not spam... if there is any spam, its the accusations of spam themselves...since those are the only posts not actually related to the actual thread.

[alster]

Since you won't read the explanations, see where you twisted what he said, and stop twisting them with your repeats, it's still unfair and not right of you, even if you have might on your side.

Jebus... suck it up cupcake.

[AAFitz]

Perhaps it would have just been better to say hey...you were trolling, and not give you the benefit of explaining why...but for me, I thought that would be unfair.

Since you won't read the explanations, see where you twisted what he said, and stop twisting them with your repeats, it's still unfair and not right of you, even if you have might on your side.

Again, I just didnt read your explanations of what he said. But mostly because I disagreed with the many that I did read. But more importantly, because I am perfectly capable of reading what he wrote, and deciding for myself, without your input. Quite frankly, your input is meaningless to my opinion...even though you seem to think it is critical for some reason. Further, its perfectly fair to quote what he wrote in this thread, which is all I did. If I translate what he said, in some way, that is my right. Im certainly not forcing anyone to agree with me. Unlike you, I understand that not everyone will agree... and I certainly dont care if everyone reads what I write... I sure as hell dont expect them too.

[stahrgazer]

Since by your own admission you won't read, why are you baiting by asking?

p.s. In other words you said, "unlike stahr who understands not everyone will agree but at least gives valid reasons without twisting the original words; you don't have to agree or use the original wording because you know best."

[AAFitz]

Since by your own admission you won't read, why are you baiting by asking?

Im not baiting anyone. You seemed to be accusing me of something. I simply said you could post those quotes if you wanted. I myself dont need to read what I wrote, because I wrote them in the first place. But if you want to point them out, feel free. Or dont. But if youre going to continue to accuse me of something, then actually quoting the posts might be more useful than just saying I did something wrong repeatedly. But again, thats your call, as is my decision to read them or not.