SilvaRizla wrote:

Why is my reply in the middle of all the other earlier replies?

Hemingway wrote:
Because you is shite at quoting.

Quote then scroll down then comment,.

oioioi wrote:
the reply!

hugorune wrote:
I want to see them Hugo....

I have no publishing rights or access to the news/media tab/bar/menu, so stop lying.
This stopped when it was decided that I was wrongly banned, so when I was reinstated I have no publishing rights, afaik.

I nominated Mikey to do the news, I think he's more on the ball, I did see he'd once posted that he'd like to join the news team.

I have not abused marina, only said her news stories were fucking lame, I have never 'abused' marina, though she has several times called me a cunt.

As for having an imposed ban until 27th May, I don't think what I typed about marina's news stories warrants that.

If I have done things wrong previously then I should have had the shorter bans then 1 week, 2 week, etc.. oi's usual process.

It's not my fault that this did not happen, but it's not fair for me to be punished retrospectively, if the correct punishments were not handed out at the time, it's not my fault, but to then look over my posting history and build a case for a longer ban, based on behaviours that went unpunished is wrong, if those' infringements' required punishing they would have at the time been so.

So what's happening now is an overview, I don't think it's fair to punish via an overview but on particular instances, so this would be at most 1 week, ban as per oi's usual strategy, though I find it's not that big a deal what I said about marina's news stories, and thats why you're digging in the past for more meat. (who ever you are)

You're trying to base a case around what I said about marina's news stories, but because the case is weak, you (who ever you are) want to create an overview in order to be punishing, when those things were not seen punishworthy at the time.

It's more like a character assassination, than a philosophical conclusion where the known accumulation ban system used has been implemented.

I think you enjoy being the victim. Are you a sadist?

SilvaRizla wrote: That's your subjective view against mine, I find it not excellent but fucking lame.

You're entitled to your opinion me to mine, if I had posted news stories that you said were fucking lame, I would not be pressing for you to be banned.

What you're doing as most seem to be is displaying disapproval, you don't approve of my views thus I should be banned, as I don't join hands and dance round in circles chanting 'we hate icke'.

I won't join in and as you say, that I say'common ground' is a place where warmth is obtained from a flock, so no thanks, if there is common ground so be it, but seeking it is not my intention, nor is avoiding it, if it becomes then it becomes, seeking it will only create homes for egos.

Still spouting shit, I see. It was never decided that you were wrongly banned, and that was made crystal clear to you.

Somebody hit the button, for crying out loud!

Cheers Oi!

Hemingway wrote:
They were about £20 in Tesco when I last used them, that's faaaaaar too expensive, that's £2 a blade! If I ran out of blades I'd have to find a spare ten or twenty quid to have a shave which takes the piss.

Mine are £8.70 for 100 - 8.7 pence per blade

Or £1.49 for 5, and £2.19 for 10

All the glory should go to me. I did it. Not as a favor but as an heroic act of troll slaying.
But I should also reveal this villain was really me all along. I trolled you all.
No really. He's gone. Total favor.

I find myself in agreement with a lot of what blue said in his first post ^

dubmeup wrote:
That's fair enough, but like you say, you missed a lot of it. There's a reason that only yourself is defending him this time around and it isn't because people dislike him. I don't dislike him, but there has to come a time when you say enough's enough.

He knew he was out of order every single time, we let him know when we felt so. He had it coming.

But as he said, no action wqs taken at the time(s).
So he is correct in saying he has been punished retrospectively, no?

And again, i aint dwfending him. I am defending fair play.

I wouldn't say we are punishing him we're sparing ourselves from his negative aura and stuff. I mean he's not being punished literally.

dubmeup wrote:
Maybe people were trying to ignore it and hoping he would play nicely in time. You can only push people so far without exceeding boundaries. BTW I didn't vote for him to be binned but rather the third choice.

I don't call tolerating someone's baiting fair play.

Gilly wrote:
That's pretty much it Gilly. We all knew, and he knew we knew.

Dubs, he could have been banned long ago but we always gave him that little extra leeway and ignored what he was doing. I think the fact that the majority click the ban option says everything.