Funny as all get-out

[Durf]

To be clear: "colors" in your sentence can refer to race

No, it can't. Practice what you preach and look up what you don't understand.

Yes...it can. Do you know what word play is? Metaphors? Poetry and symbolism? Given that you made an attempt at an allegory in another post, one would think you'd be able to understand; given that you failed at that in itself, I didn't expect you to understand.
Regardless, the point remains that it could have been interpreted as a distinction between races of people.

If you intended on being clear, you would have said what you meant and meant what you said. (no matter how many more words you need to clarify the disambiguation).

I'm afraid I don't understand the joke.

Ah, I forgot that you also think that "German" is a race.

It is fact that they are. Do you wish to be educated? Do you realize who you are offending by saying this?

"how does what Lucifer say show MY true colors?"

I quoted Lucifer just to crack a joke. It had nothing to do with the first lines of that post.

" 'It was meant to be funny' is no valid excuse, unless the moderators think it was funny." - good thing you bought enough of their favor with your blind support. They might just overlook the uselessness of your sense of humor and permit you to continue. (seriously though, no one is laughing - try staying on topic if you want something to be solved?)

All that post contains are insults - unfounded by any actual reasoning.

Actually, no:

I said you're a coward because you use privacy as a smoke screen

(See what I did there?)

Yes, I saw you refer to the very same thing I refuted earlier:

The reasons why are not for "privacy". I made my reasoning clear and the more you try to label your own reason, the more you're just attacking / harassing me.

Now I'm going to ask you again to stop making such assumptions and stop harassing me with your assumptions. This should be the last time I have to ask you at all.
Did you forget the reasoning? Scroll up and read. Didn't understand it? I can explain it thoroughly for you should you need it.
You've mistook "you're a coward" as the insult (understandably); but your unfounded assumption, "because you use privacy as a smoke screen" is the insult in this case.
You're trying to support an unfounded claim with yet another unfounded claim. You wouldn't be insulting if you can show reason, but you can't seem to even do that.

This was a test, and you failed.

Since you're always repeating the same mantra and your answers are so much alike and only differ in length, not in content, they're all the same to me by now, I'll admit that. So if that was a test, do you agree that your behaviour is hypocritical and that Ratchet's isn't? Oh wait, you don't, but everyone else is in a "biased environment". Hahaha, you're ridiculous.

I find it ridiculous that you cannot refrain from making such wild assumptions. I would only ever claim that Ratchet was a hypocrite if they did something hypocritical (such as violate rule 1 just to say to someone they have violated rule 1 - let alone violating other rules in the process - and you're trying to call me a hypocrite for that? LOL you're so misguided; makes it seem like your feelings are hurt because of something between Rachet and myself).
Your ridiculousness aside, you are admitting to basically being incapable of reading the actual message of my words and you get lost in the words themselves.
I, like anyone, has a predisposition to using certain words; "mantra" is far from the appropriate term to use in this case.
I explained the purpose of the test - you're only making yourself an idiot by deliberately ignoring it. You think you're making some kind of point by even still responding, but you failed to assess your actions (words) for their overall effect they would have.
But taking your concern seriously for a moment, what does being hypocritical have to do with the test? How isn't that just another petty attempt at name-calling?
If you have a genuine question about the test, then ask it.
This has been an excellent example of how you just think I'm "ridiculous" without any real way to show it (in case you forgot about your first "smoke screen" assumption - you are assuming what I even think. [sarcasm -->] Tell us, oh great mind reader, tell us exactly what I think. [<-- sarcasm] )

Notice how vulgar and offensive you are

Um, where?

Because you deliberately took part of the sentence away, let's correct your error:

notice all the claims you make without any reasoning or proof to support them (insults you make).

Here we go:

this whole discussion is pointless if you remain elusive

We have already established that you're a hypocrite

most of your posts boil down to that "no u"

You can start by showing us how these are not vulgar ("lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined." - Google Dictionary).
Then you can show us how these claims actually have some kind of foundation; a real basis to them; evidence to support them.
Otherwise, you'll just have to deal with the claim made of you - don't like it? Why should I even prove it if you yourself can't do the very same thing about what you say of others?
Regardless of me being able to prove my claims, you don't deserve anything more than unfounded claims in return.
But you can always prove me wrong (get it?)

What worth are you to this community or to my inflated ego?

The answer lies in the question, right?

^ you're putting words in my mouth. Besides this being more of the same harassment from you, it is only a petty attempt to change what was said to prove your side of things. In case you haven't realized yet, that will never work.
The more you try, the more you are harassing me (and for what? Just why are you here?).
Stop it.

why can't the moderators address my posts?

Their job, not mine.

^ Glad you said this as this is gold.
I've been saying the moderators haven't been doing their job - thanks for proving it.

[Word]

You can start by showing us how these are not vulgar ("lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined." - Google Dictionary).

Hypocritical? Elusive? You can add dictionary links all you want, the word "vulgar" doesn't describe the examples you gave. Did I make a slippery joke about your mom?

Glad you said this as this is gold.

Clarification: They can do what they want. It's not my decision what to do with you.

but your unfounded assumption, "because you use privacy as a smoke screen" is the insult in this case.

Wrong, it's my word against yours until the PMs are posted. Judging by the fact that several people have told you to stop PM'ing them, I'm not even alone with that "unfounded assumption".

But taking your concern seriously for a moment, what does being hypocritical have to do with the test?

I can't read your mind and you didn't announce your moronic "test" (and if it was, in fact, an experiment, you forgot your part when you said you don't act hypocritically).
Oh, wait, maybe this is all a test.

Given that you made an attempt at an allegory in another post

You can start by showing us...

You didn't understand the allegory. You're the only one here who can't grasp something that is obvious to everyone else.

you're putting words in my mouth.

Oops?

[/dev/null]

I wish I had seen this thread when it occured, I love me a good shitchucking. Plus after reading it, I dont think ive ever seen such a wonderful collection of assholes besides me in one place on the forums.

As for complaining about Lucifer, you are as much a fool for believing a damn thing he says as you are for believing anything I say.

[Durf]

Hypocritical? Elusive? You can add dictionary links all you want, the word "vulgar" doesn't describe the examples you gave. Did I make a slippery joke about your mom?

^ Actually it fits the definition quite well - but at this point we're getting into subjective areas (there are no rules to define what it "too vulgar" for these forums). That being said, if you believe you weren't being vulgar, then I'm not about to argue with you on that - I figured the appeal to your senses would have been enough to get you to be a little more respectable. We shall see. Jokes about my mother (even though I don't care about them) are not the only definition of what is "vulgar".
Pretty sure you can search these forums for the first time I used the word "vulgar"; I was describing my word choice, and how sometimes I must choose more words in order to be less vulgar. That doesn't mean using profanity (or not). Get a dictionary and read it.

Clarification: They can do what they want. It's not my decision what to do with you.

^ you keep making this better and better. Keep going! Please!
If you look closely at their "decision", it is to avoid the issue completely; avoid making a decision at all. The way you first put it ([not] doing their job) was quite accurate, but this latest line shows how it is a deliberate choice on their part (rather than gross incompetence). Well done.

Wrong, it's my word against yours until the PMs are posted. Judging by the fact that several people have told you to stop PM'ing them, I'm not even alone with that "unfounded assumption".

First I'd like to point out the contradiction in saying that people have told me to stop PMing them (of which I abide by those wishes - so what is the problem?) is evidence that I'm lying about the completeness of the PM history. You cannot use the fact that people have asked me to stop PMing them as evidence to support the claim that there is more to the PM history (the two are entirely unrelated).
Second, what exactly is your word? How could you possibly know what the PM history contains? It was between Z-Man and myself - so not only have you exposed that Z-Man has at least told you something about the PMs (forget that it might be a lie for the moment or how that is a violation of a user's privacy), but you have no word in this matter. Nothing you say will make any difference because you don't know about the PM history. So in the end, this is Z-Man's word against mine...and what does he have to say? Nothing it seems.
So what is your word exactly? What are you looking for?
The PM history posted is everything that I said I would post (back when Z-Man didn't want it posted); it is everything that will prove / disprove the claims I've made against him. Literally all the way until the ending - where he refuses to continue the dispute any further (without having appealed to reasoning or evidence).

I can't read your mind and you didn't announce your moronic "test" (and if it was, in fact, an experiment, you forgot your part when you said you don't act hypocritically).
Oh, wait, maybe this is all a test.

Stop tripping over your own words. It is not illegal to perform social experimentation. Furthermore, that is one way I can learn very easily to interact better among you guys - but it seems you're against just about anything I have to say (might as well start complimenting you so you call yourself an idiot).
I stated the purpose of the test, I'm surprised you didn't understand it. The purpose was to show everyone how even if I post exactly what you expect me to (based on the "summarizations" people have given), you still have a problem with my posts (like I've done something evil). This was the test that you failed. It proved how you don't care about how or why, all you care about is "does Durf agree" and if not, you post your flamboyant response with a holier-than-thou attitude. It proved how you don't know how to have a discussion - it proved how you are run by your emotions.
"this is all a test" - essentially that's true. I've tried to give you all fair warning that I don't perceive things the same way; people are different. Social behavior is not instinctual for me like it may be for you, meaning I must learn it logically and consciously. This "test" that I did was merely to expose a contradiction in the behavior exhibited by members of this community (proving how you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't).
All that being said, just be reasonable (and have some patience) and we won't have problems communicating. If you'd rather not communicate with me, then don't - no one is forcing you to.

You didn't understand the allegory. You're the only one here who can't grasp something that is obvious to everyone else.

Let's see about that:

Allegory: Why should I, why should anyone tell you my hair color is brown when you're colorblind and insist that it is green, and everyone else is just an asshole if he/she disagrees with Sherlock Durf? It's just insanity to us.

This is not an allegory, it is an analogy. So first of all, my claim that you failed was misinterpreted. I said you failed in making an allegory.
Now let's see about that analogy: you're implying that I'm being stubborn about hair color (anything in this case) and making the claim that I just THINK everyone is an asshole should they disagree with Sherlock (patronizing and disrespectful) Durf.
Here's what's completely laughable about it: they are, yet again, unfounded claims. I've called people an ASS for making an assumption (don't make assumptions - they make an ASS out of U and ME - you're the ass for making it in the first place, I'm the ass for calling you out on it, overall the responsibility of it all rests with the person that made the assumption). That being said, I'm not calling people an ass for disagreeing with me - in fact, I encourage people to disagree (they have the freedom of their opinion). What makes people an ass are the unfounded claims (such as you being an ass for making such a ridiculous "allegory"). It also shouldn't be considered stubborn in any way to ask for reasoning/facts - unless you expect me to be as empty-headed as your claims have been, I'm not about to subject myself to that life of stupidity. I'm going to be sure of what's being said and if you can't prove it to me, I can't be sure.
Tell me, is it insanity to ask for reasoning or proof? Or is it insanity to expect that no one will ask for it?

you're putting words in my mouth.

Oops?

^ the least you could do is apologize for being an ass. When have I ever spoke for you? Never take away a person's ability to speak for themselves (this is just as bad as assuming what they meant without being sure - possibly worse because you're enforcing your erroneous thoughts).
You response leads me to believe that you don't care all that much either way - in the end this amounts to you just being disrespectful (AGAIN - for what? You take it upon yourself to post in these threads, what are you trying to do with your posts?)

edited 5 times in total.

Lol stop trying so hard; what is your purpose? You edited your post 5 times and still didn't realize that you're just being off topic and self-centered?






Bump:

ON TOPIC:

We're waiting for the moderators response to this post. Notice how it has been avoided this whole time; notice how the moderators' supporters can only post off topic posts.
If there is a real issue to be dealt with, this thread is only building up into evidence for my claims that these moderators are incompetent and don't even know how to do their job.
Their explanation should easily prove how the actions weren't abusive (or were otherwise called for by this supposedly existing policy that allows such behavior). However, as it stands, moderator action was clearly taken when there was no reason for it to be (by definition, abusing moderator status).

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 03#p291003 <-- moderators have yet to respond

[wap]

"Stop trying so hard" - Durf, 2015

[Word]

If you look closely at their "decision",...

No answer is an answer, I'd say. You don't make a compelling case.

What are you looking for?

See random previous post.

It is not illegal to perform social experimentation.

Huh?

you still have a problem with my posts (like I've done something evil)

Aaaand back to the Durf conspiracy.

This "test" that I did was merely to expose a contradiction in the behavior exhibited by members of this community...

Whether your perception is responsible or not, you don't understand how conversations are supposed to work. They don't work if one side makes some controversial points, continuously shouts down the disagreeing party (unfounded assumptions! unfounded assumptions! don't be an ass!) and then claims one of these counterattacks was a social experiment. Do you know the tale of Peter and the wolf?

This is not an allegory, it is an analogy.

"Analogy of the cave" has 67.500 hits on Google. The "allegory of the cave" has 926.000, probably just non-Durfs like me.

Tell me, is it insanity to ask for reasoning or proof?

In your case, yes. That was the point.

Never take away a person's ability to speak for themselves

The changes I made were highlighted and transparent for everyone to see. Everyone who still follows this thread could see on the first glance that it was edited, even my comment was rather explicit. And you're still complaining. Laughable.