CB didn't report the post. I found it myself.
My mistake. I recall that he made a great show once of telling Jukebox Jury that he
could report him for something or other,
if he wasn't careful, so I took him for some sort of squeally-baby.
I apologize, Cornelius Blaze. You only
threaten to tattle on people. Masculine!
I gave you warning to let you know that those are the types of posts that lead to infractions and bannings
My post was a factual observation of the content of this site. (As for "the types of posts that lead to infractions and bannings," those usually are simply this: posts which criticize Kewpie, another moderator, or the friend of a moderator.) Cornelius Blaze virtually never posts except to (a.) attack someone who has criticized Kewpie's ability as a moderator, in many instances engaging in behavior which might (rightly) see anyone less favored banned (and rightly so--I recall his weird, dozens of menacing references to NRiTH's family); or to (b.) celebrate that someone by whom he's been told off has been banned--O mysteries of the universe!--by his friend Kewpie. A person whose online life consists entirely of said behavior is someone likely to have been called, at one point or another in his life, a lickspittle. (This is a word that became known to me when Mark E. Smith applied it to the late Stephen Wells, in the course of wishing every other member of the NME staff a merry Christmas.)
Cornelius Blaze, like the user HIM, never posts except to bait. And now we have the comedy of seeing Kewpie's PM's, in which she whines that Jukebox Jury was baiting her. She is a lying, hypocritical imbecile. This is another factual observation for your consideration.
but honestly, I am pretty sure you are a banned user who has returned and I'm just waiting for the proof or for you to repeat your actions. In your 14 posts at the time of this response you have contributed nothing, you have done some borderline trolling and you revealed that you know an awful lot about this website, the nature of specific users, the ethnicity of the site owner and an overall level of comfort that is not common of new users.
It's not important to me, but--I've "contributed" several posts with which members of the forum--I realize they don't count here, but humor me--voiced strong agreement. That you discount this or fail to notice it is par for the course for David T.'s moderators, and for David T. You are a parasitic clique who think that the host needs you, rather than vice versa. Most of you are proven liars about one thing or another, and lately we have the recounted spectacle of your shouting for the death of Julia Riley at a concert. You're not fit to lecture anyone about anything, to my knowledge.
What have you ever contributed, if I may ask? You are some bizarre version of the Tom Cruise character from Magnolia who appeared as a moderator without anyone here ever having noticed you, and who's since droned dating advice and New Age bullshit to a drug-addled moron and the four or five rightwing smiley experts who torture/forgive him.
For two weeks recently, this site was nothing except a gang of users calling a man and his wife "fat c***s." Cornelius Blaze and HIM led the charge--Kewpie's pet trolls. What a f***ing surprise.
Then the man is banned for
asking if someone is gay. This on a site in which "faggy" is a sanctioned, acceptable adjective.
So did you get treated differently than people who have a history of being positive contributors and were venting genuine frustration toward the banning of someone they know? 100%.
New users and suspicious users get very little slack. That's the way it works. I won't apologize that you disagree with this policy. You have some choices. Accept it and understand that this is just how it is or you could just leave the site because it makes you unhappy or you could argue your points for the next 100 years. It really doesn't matter to me which you choose. I can assure you that arguing will be the least effective and most frustrating choice but to each their own.
I see you won't address my central argument about the TOS, the Pigsty, the stupidity-revealing contradiction of saying that the former applies in the latter, and above all this site's tradition of favortism, of branding Kewpie's critics as trolls while enabling the trolls who attack her critics. I have not complained that your warning to me was unfair. I have only remarked that it was ridiculous, and stupid, and you'll find almost no one who disagrees about that.
Your remarks on consistency, or lack thereof, don't tally well with the treatment of Jukebox Jury. He was given extra leeway, David T. says. Why? No idea. It seems like a mistake to treat some users differently than others, I would insanely suggest. What were the terms of the extra leeway? As it seemed to me, he was allowed to make a running gag of his objections to Kewpie. Then, today, at an arbitrary moment--relative to the things which have or haven't seen others banned in the past--he had the rug pulled out from under him.
There are no Terms of Service. There are no rules here. It is a lie.
As for the site's policemen's focus on identity, rather than behavior, that is an old issue that I have discussed with David T. He has made it very clear that he isn't able to understand the matter, although it's simple. He, like you, isn't very bright, and is content to end all "conversations" by telling people to go elsewhere.
I don't find it frustrating to argue with you. There is no arguing with you, as you've just explained. You are a purely unintelligent and narcissistic authority in a venue of no importance. You are one of a select group of people who have destroyed a once-amazing website. I don't care what you think about anything. You are a moron, and you must on some level know that by now.
Excuse me now. I'm going to watch that video where you're dressed like a Jonas brother on his way to the Nickelodeon Awards again. Not the best look for a pear-shaped thirtysomething, you know?