oioioi wrote:
This it what I said, & this is what I meant, & if you can't understand it, then that's your problem.

DG said on TZ...
That means the people on here that do it, NOT all SZ'ers of course....

Oh, that's odd I thought the ONLY reason you signed in tonight was to clear up exactly what you meant re: SZ members, management and NaNs yet given the chance to clarify exactly what you meant you swerve decline the opportunity.

Gilly wrote:
Yes I am...it makes all the difference....can't you see?

Its the difference between saying ''some people who are so-called nans or doom mongers on the DIF'' are shitheads, and actually naming them...by name.

I thought you were brighter than this gilly. Or you just being deliberately obtuse now?

diamondgeezer wrote:
So you're ok with sweeping generalisations of certain groups of people but not individuals within the group who aren't members of the forum and unable to defend themselves?

How's that less top heavy moderation working out for you?

diamondgeezer wrote:
So you can call people shitheads a long as you don't say who these shitheads actually are?

If you're calling someone a shithead, isn't it better to be clear about exactly who you're calling a shithead?

& gilly....weren't you complaining about BC telling you to fuck off in his sig on TZ by name...

@ oi....you're not worth responding to. If my word is worthless in your opinion, then why should I even respond to yours.

Well I'm sure we are all equally grateful for you logging on and clarifying that point for us.

Was there anything else?

Preferably not related to your pet topic 'SZ'.

dogsmilk wrote:
Not on another forum that that person isn't a member of, no.

If someone, ANYONE, called you a shithead by name (ie dogsmilk is a shithead) on TZ, then that comment would be removed as soon as we spotted it, & the poster responsible would be told not to repeat.

Reason? You're not there to defend yourself against said comment. Its that simple.

Please don't bother on my behalf.

Dg imho your argument would have more merit if the other day you hadnt insisted on bringing up and asking to discuss people who were not able to defend themselves (irre and zeph).

this is all getting rather fucking ridiculous.

diamondgeezer wrote:
It's not in my opinion, it's in your actions, such as posting now.

So...

I'm sure we are all equally grateful for you logging on and clarifying that point for us.

Was there anything else?

Preferably not related to your pet topic 'SZ'.

Or is that not really the ONLY reason you logged on mr man of your word?

I'll happily call a load of DIF members cunts now even though they aren't here to defend themselves.
KOTG - cunt
Tinyint - cunt
ES - cunt
Bendoon - cunt
Rodin - cunt
Voxvot - cunt
Resistance - cunt

I'm despicable me - cunt.

thoreau wrote:
Except for the fact that (a) I was bringing them up here in defence of them, & (b) they are both members here...

C'mon....get a grip.

You missed out arcy - total cunt.

oioioi wrote:
ok...why shouldn't I be posting now? Because you don't want me too?

Fuck off.

diamondgeezer wrote:
I stick by my opinion but would infinitely prefer if we could just all move passed this

Because you are a man of your word and you only logged in to address Gilly's post.

Only going off what you said.

And tbh I've rather enjoyed having you around these last few days.

Made all the more

thoreau wrote:
Fair enough, but please acknowledge my point, that zeph (& irre on & off) ARE actually members here, so ARE able to defend themselves.

If you didn't know, zeph is still a valid member here, under the name hollow..

So, in conclusion, TZ and SZ have different approaches to their users and are different forums. I think we can all agree on that DG and leave it there. No need for you to keep trolling us reminding us about it from here on is there?

Is there?



It's been educational.

I did not realise that zeph had the ability to respond so will concede that point but irre was not as his socks were banned and the irre account was voluntarily inactive.

I do agree as i said before in this thread that people should not be spoken about if they cannot defend themselves and will readily admit that I am somewhat of a hypocrite as I have said derogatory things in the past about certain ex dif members by name mainly in response to stuff said on the dif when I could not respond - but yeah learnt my lesson and told meself off about that a while ago.

It does feel however as if you are coming here purely for an argument - which does not reflect well on you nor do this place much good - I have said elsewhere that I trust you to keep to your word about not pulling the plug on this place and I still trust you not to - however the continuing bad blood does feel a little like pulling the plug by proxy.

This next part is directed at everyone - time to break the cycle peeps and stop.