Monoid should be BANNED! | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (1)
dariusgriffin
...and 382 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2613454
Today 7
Topics 127500
  
 
Messageboard index
Monoid should be BANNED!
 

offline Phone from Paris (France) on 2007-04-25 06:28 [#02075619]
Points: 215 Status: Lurker



I have shown some of Monoid's threads, but all of his are
the same: every thread he makes is rubbish, always rubbish.
But he still posts here! I am tired of reading his rubbish
complaints and his crap ideas. He is a attention-seeker.


 

offline EVOL from a long time ago on 2007-04-25 06:29 [#02075620]
Points: 4921 Status: Lurker



no you should


 

offline Phone from Paris (France) on 2007-04-25 06:33 [#02075622]
Points: 215 Status: Lurker | Followup to EVOL: #02075620



You are ignoring my point, I am angry for a GOOD reason and
I have put Monoid's threads on top for a GOOD reason, to
show what a crappy idiot he is! But maybe I must stop, he
probably likes all this attention he is getting, that is why
he posts, just for ATTENTION. What a fool!


 

offline Chin Bwoy Phat from London (United Kingdom) on 2007-04-25 06:38 [#02075628]
Points: 574 Status: Lurker



RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-04-25 06:38 [#02075629]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



 


Attached picture

 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2007-04-25 06:44 [#02075634]
Points: 24578 Status: Lurker



Maybe when you hit the 100 post mark you can bray for other
members to be banned.


 

offline nesukayh from Kildare on 2007-04-25 06:45 [#02075636]
Points: 55 Status: Addict | Followup to marlowe: #02075634



is that clark kent ?


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2007-04-25 06:49 [#02075638]
Points: 24578 Status: Lurker | Followup to nesukayh: #02075636



Marcin??

No, it's Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch.


 

offline cuntychuck from Copenhagen (Denmark) on 2007-04-25 07:01 [#02075642]
Points: 8603 Status: Lurker | Followup to Phone: #02075622



who the fuck are you to say anything you filthy duplicate?
YOU should be banned.


 

offline EVOL from a long time ago on 2007-04-25 07:06 [#02075644]
Points: 4921 Status: Lurker | Followup to Phone: #02075622



after reading through all of his threads i haven't laughed
so hard since the last time i laughed so hard reading
through all his threads!


 

offline cuntychuck from Copenhagen (Denmark) on 2007-04-25 07:08 [#02075646]
Points: 8603 Status: Lurker | Followup to EVOL: #02075644



do you really mean that? or are you just posting for the
sake of posting?


 

offline uzim on 2007-04-25 07:20 [#02075650]
Points: 17716 Status: Lurker | Followup to Phone: #02075619



i couldn't stand the damn guy either, he used to exasperate
me. he's just not a compulsive whiner, he also said some
truly obnoxious things (about people who have AIDS for
example) that would definitely deserve a ban. but i think i
finally got used to him now — maybe he's just a double
account used by a mod or an admin... or maybe they just
don't ban him because he's a part of xltronic now, some kind
of "legend" if you want, even though it's because he's so
miserable.

he's a bit like an ugly decorative object someone put in a
place where you live or work, and you can't get rid of it :
at first it just makes you mad and you just want to smash
the damn thing to pieces or throw it away or whatever, and
after some time you're used to it and don't even notice it
anymore.

now if he were to be banned, it would definitely be for the
better. after all, other xltronic "legends" were banned as
well (some arguably deserving it less than Monoid).


 

offline EVOL from a long time ago on 2007-04-25 07:23 [#02075651]
Points: 4921 Status: Lurker | Followup to cuntychuck: #02075646



what? i think they're fuckin hilarious! i'm not talking
specifically about his topics or his posts in particular.
i'm talking about everyone elses responses in his threads.
people here are fuckin crazy mother fuckers and they say
some pretty good shit in response to other peoples stupid
replies. all together for what they're worth anyway...


 

offline B123 from The wicked underbelly (Australia) on 2007-04-25 07:27 [#02075654]
Points: 1361 Status: Lurker



monoid makes me not want to be a part of xlt


 

offline SValx from United Kingdom on 2007-04-25 07:46 [#02075661]
Points: 2586 Status: Regular | Followup to Phone: #02075619



I know English isn't your first language, but for fucks
sake, you've said it wrong so many times, it's really
starting to piss me off. It's "AN attention seeker", not "a
attention seeker".


 

offline rockenjohnny from champagne socialism (Australia) on 2007-04-25 07:49 [#02075662]
Points: 7983 Status: Lurker | Followup to Phone: #02075619



theres never a good reason to be angry. you have choice in
the matter as well, you could either open no monoid topics,
or you could open 30 monoid topics.


 

offline Netlon Sentinel from eDe (Netherlands, The) on 2007-04-25 07:50 [#02075663]
Points: 4736 Status: Lurker | Followup to SValx: #02075661



For fuck's sake


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-04-25 07:51 [#02075664]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to rockenjohnny: #02075662 | Show recordbag



?

There are many good reasons to be angry about lost of
different things all the time.


 

offline SValx from United Kingdom on 2007-04-25 07:52 [#02075665]
Points: 2586 Status: Regular | Followup to Netlon Sentinel: #02075663



haha straight after I posted, I knew someone would pick me
up for that :D


 

offline rockenjohnny from champagne socialism (Australia) on 2007-04-25 07:53 [#02075666]
Points: 7983 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02075664



but anger, being our own reaction, is our own problem, not
someone elses!


 

offline Netlon Sentinel from eDe (Netherlands, The) on 2007-04-25 07:55 [#02075668]
Points: 4736 Status: Lurker | Followup to SValx: #02075665



You were probably angry when you were typing it.

And I'm not picking you up, you naughty one.


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2007-04-25 07:56 [#02075669]
Points: 24578 Status: Lurker



Johnny is right - we have the choice to be angry or not, to
get offended by things or not.


 

offline Netlon Sentinel from eDe (Netherlands, The) on 2007-04-25 07:58 [#02075671]
Points: 4736 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #02075669



All we have to do is give up our personalities.


 

offline _gvarek_ from next to you (Poland) on 2007-04-25 07:59 [#02075672]
Points: 4882 Status: Lurker



mono for mod!


 

offline EVOL from a long time ago on 2007-04-25 08:00 [#02075673]
Points: 4921 Status: Lurker | Followup to Netlon Sentinel: #02075671



aha touche!


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-04-25 08:00 [#02075674]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to rockenjohnny: #02075666 | Show recordbag



Not necessarily. Anger is directed, and for instance in
moral cases, I'd say it's imperative that you allow your
anger to be expressed as such. Of course, that doesn't mean
you should use violence, but if I wasn't allowed to show
disdain or anger towards people who do or say things that I
find despicable, that would remove the entire basis for
morality. I publicly, actively and expressively condemn
those who use violence, those who refuse to take
responsibility for their actions, those who believe it is ok
to kill, etc, in short, all those who anger me.


 

offline _gvarek_ from next to you (Poland) on 2007-04-25 08:01 [#02075676]
Points: 4882 Status: Lurker | Followup to Phone: #02075619



oh, btw, hi monoid, I have really enjoyed your pop vibe.


 

offline sadist from the dark side of the moon on 2007-04-25 08:01 [#02075677]
Points: 8670 Status: Lurker



.


Attached picture

 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-04-25 08:02 [#02075678]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #02075669 | Show recordbag



Sure we have the choice, but having the choice doesn't imply
never choosing the one path. On the contrary!


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-04-25 08:03 [#02075680]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02075678 | Show recordbag



I'm actually not sure about the usage of "on the contrary"
in this situation: can I use it like I would "au
contraire!"?


 

offline _gvarek_ from next to you (Poland) on 2007-04-25 08:05 [#02075682]
Points: 4882 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02075680



oh for fuck('s) sake!


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-04-25 08:07 [#02075684]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to _gvarek_: #02075682 | Show recordbag



What, are they both wrong?

I'd use "det er vel heller motsatt!" but that'd be kind of
wasted.


 

offline rockenjohnny from champagne socialism (Australia) on 2007-04-25 08:08 [#02075687]
Points: 7983 Status: Lurker



anger doesnt benefit oneself or others. its not a
constructive means of dealing with an issue. we all know
anger can be harmful. so it should be clear that to react
with anger is never a good choice.

there always constructive alternatives, good examples we can
lead by, better choices.


 

offline rockenjohnny from champagne socialism (Australia) on 2007-04-25 08:10 [#02075688]
Points: 7983 Status: Lurker | Followup to Netlon Sentinel: #02075671



only the 'bad' bits!


 

offline Indeksical from Phobiazero Damage Control (United Kingdom) on 2007-04-25 08:10 [#02075690]
Points: 10671 Status: Regular | Show recordbag







Attached picture

 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-04-25 08:15 [#02075696]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to rockenjohnny: #02075687 | Show recordbag



Anger is the energy fuelling critique. Just as you have a
choice to be angry or not, you have the choice of how to
relate to your anger; I'm relatively calm, and I usually
choose to express anger by confronting people with arguments
against their opinions. The energy in anger can be used
constructively, and up until a certain point this energy
will shine through if you put it up against someone who is
cold and distanced. In a cheesy metaphor (I love those), ice
doesn't freeze the sun; the sun melts the ice.


 

offline EVOL from a long time ago on 2007-04-25 08:17 [#02075698]
Points: 4921 Status: Lurker | Followup to rockenjohnny: #02075688



you live in a dream world. yeah that would be great if
everyone and everything was all hunky dory and peachy keen
110% of the time but then really who would wnt to be a
robot? "you can only think about unicorns and fairies and
rainbows and lollipops" one set of mental shackles in
exchange for another more limiting set of mental shackles?
"look there goes johnny with his perfectly straight teeth
and his perfectly straight blond hair" "oh wait was that
johnny or evol?" "i thought it was drunken mastah, ya know
they're all the same with all there happy go lucky mindsets.
how can anyone tell anyone else apart from each other?"
just because you say one way is more right than another?
who are you? like i said, dream world. sure it would be
great no pain no suffering, but what how would you know
pleasure when there is no pain?


 

offline sadist from the dark side of the moon on 2007-04-25 08:19 [#02075701]
Points: 8670 Status: Lurker



.


Attached picture

 

offline rockenjohnny from champagne socialism (Australia) on 2007-04-25 08:21 [#02075703]
Points: 7983 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02075696



why should anger be treated as a foundation? why dont we
find the sun in our heart, a kindness and compassion toward
people?

i think its entirely possible to distinguish between good
and bad actions without bouncing off anger or other negative
emotions. in fact it would make more sense to me to suggest
that we can make observations with much greater clarity
without those negative emotions in the way.


 

offline sheffieldbleep from Sheffield (United Kingdom) on 2007-04-25 08:26 [#02075706]
Points: 2466 Status: Lurker



monoid's finest thread was 'do you eat your own cum?'
That thread was a work of art and should never have been
closed.


 

offline rockenjohnny from champagne socialism (Australia) on 2007-04-25 08:27 [#02075707]
Points: 7983 Status: Lurker | Followup to EVOL: #02075698



i dont consider myself to be ignorant of the imperfect
nature of life. i definitely acknowledge the presence of
gross and subtle levels of suffering. i think its important
that we gradually learn to accept all of these things rather
than continually pushing them away, and reacting in a way
that is not constructive.


 

offline sheffieldbleep from Sheffield (United Kingdom) on 2007-04-25 08:28 [#02075708]
Points: 2466 Status: Lurker



or was it 'gak' as in to gak on a mouth full of cum?

Pure class.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-04-25 08:29 [#02075709]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to rockenjohnny: #02075703 | Show recordbag



There are many different energy manifestations (just to be
clear, I'm not talking new-age star energy whatever, It's
just a sort of metaphor for engagement with some extra
implications). Kindness and compassion are both different
kinds of energy manifestation from anger, and they all have
their appropriate situations. It doesn't do you any good to
use the energy of compassion towards your opponent in a
debate. That's disrespectful towards him, it belittles him.
It also belittles the true cases of compassion. If I were to
love everyone, would it mean anything special that I loved
my girl? No! Love is reserved for those worthy of it, anger
is reserved for those worthy of it.

I think I should probably note that there are also
differences between anger and rage and frenzy. If you will,
anger is the proper engaged position to take up for an
argument. I don't find rage or frenzy appropriate for any
situation, but that's because in most situations the
situation will cease to exist once frenzy or rage is applied
to it.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-04-25 08:30 [#02075710]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to rockenjohnny: #02075707 | Show recordbag



Unconditional acceptance isn't constructive.


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2007-04-25 08:30 [#02075711]
Points: 24578 Status: Lurker



Giving up your personality would be giving up your choice.


 

offline EVOL from a long time ago on 2007-04-25 08:37 [#02075716]
Points: 4921 Status: Lurker



obviuosly, i can see that i don't belong here so... goodbye!


 

offline rockenjohnny from champagne socialism (Australia) on 2007-04-25 08:40 [#02075720]
Points: 7983 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02075709



how can compassion be a disrespectful gesture? if anything
it shows consideration! thoughts built on compassion are not
condescending by default.

should the debate be focused on some horrible event, i could
forsee a person coming up with a constructive solution if
they were focused on the benefit of all parties involved.



 

online dariusgriffin from cool on 2007-04-25 08:41 [#02075721]
Points: 12394 Status: Regular | Followup to SValx: #02075661



He's not really French you know.


 

offline rockenjohnny from champagne socialism (Australia) on 2007-04-25 08:43 [#02075725]
Points: 7983 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02075710



well it is, because once you have accepted the nature of any
problematic situation, you are best positioned to act
constructively!



 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-04-25 08:45 [#02075727]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to rockenjohnny: #02075720 | Show recordbag



Not condescending by default, no, but condescending towards
an adversary. If you were arguing with me, and you know my
attitude towards you was one of "Deep awareness of the
suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it.
(See Synonyms at pity)," would you take that as me
respecting you? Or would you take it as me thinking you're a
retard for holding the views you hold, and that you don't
deserve to be met with good arguments, but rather with an
overbearing "grown-up-talking-to-a-child" tone?


 


Messageboard index