You think Nirvana is more worthy than Cat Stevens, Deep Purple, and KISS.
Honestly, even though I don't like them much, KISS had a larger impact on the music industry, in terms of concept albums, image, marketing, and cross-promotion.
Nirvana had a larger cultural impact. They galvanized youth culture in a way that Gene Simmons could only dream about.
Let's talk about the cultural influence of an habitual junkie who offed himself. :lulz:
Such an example!
Let's talk about the cultural influence of an habitual junkie who offed himself. :lulz:
Such an example!
Yeah, this is just my experience here, but I've never heard anyone gush about Nirvana's cultural impact who didn't have a bong in one hand and a crack pipe in the other.
Nirvana had a larger cultural impact. They galvanized youth culture in a way that Gene Simmons could only dream about.
Nothing Nirvana did lasted 20 years.
People are still doing the stuff KISS started 40 years ago.
Let's talk about the cultural influence of an habitual junkie who offed himself. :lulz:
Such an example!
Yeah, this is just my experience here, but I've never heard anyone gush about Nirvana's cultural impact who didn't have a bong in one hand and a crack pipe in the other.
I think we should most definitely commermorate his life and cultural influence on youth.
Maybe we could name a needle exchange program after him.
I think the hopeless fangirling about Nirvana is just a troll, guys.
Are you kidding? There are all kinds of bands that broke, and are still around, because of the groundwork laid by Nirvana.
I think the hopeless fangirling about Nirvana is just a troll, guys.
I think the hopeless fangirling about Nirvana is just a troll, guys.
That would be awesome.
Are you kidding? There are all kinds of bands that broke, and are still around, because of the groundwork laid by Nirvana.
Such as...
Are you kidding? There are all kinds of bands that broke, and are still around, because of the groundwork laid by Nirvana.
Such as...
Radiohead, for starters. They got their foot in the door because of Creep which had the same soft/loud dynamic, angsty lyrics, and a buzzsaw guitar approach.
The Smashing Pumpkins were languishing as a weird alt-metal band, relegated to Headbanger's Ball and 120 Minutes until Nirvana came along.
For better or for worse, they also paved the way for Green Day and The Offspring.
I think the hopeless fangirling about Nirvana is just a troll, guys.
That would be awesome.
I hope not.
Because listening to RWHN gush about that dead junkie is like watching Jay & Silent Bob going off about how Morris Day and The Time was the best band ever.
I think the hopeless fangirling about Nirvana is just a troll, guys.
That would be awesome.
I hope not.
Because listening to RWHN gush about that dead junkie is like watching Jay & Silent Bob going off about how Morris Day and The Time was the best band ever.
A troll would be awesome in comparison to someone REALLY REALLY believing Nirvana was that earth-shattering.
For better or for worse, they also paved the way for Green Day and The Offspring.
The Offspring formed 3 years before Nirvana.
:|
For better or for worse, they also paved the way for Green Day and The Offspring.
The Offspring formed 3 years before Nirvana.
:|
For better or for worse, they also paved the way for Green Day and The Offspring.
The Offspring formed 3 years before Nirvana.
:|
See, I could get behind the Offspring. But Nirvana? C'mon.
For better or for worse, they also paved the way for Green Day and The Offspring.
The Offspring formed 3 years before Nirvana.
:|
And nobody gave a shit about them until after Nirvana hit the scene.
For better or for worse, they also paved the way for Green Day and The Offspring.
The Offspring formed 3 years before Nirvana.
:|
See, I could get behind the Offspring. But Nirvana? C'mon.
I like about a third of the Offspring's stuff, because it's shouty in a good way.
Angry shouty > whiny shouty.
For better or for worse, they also paved the way for Green Day and The Offspring.
The Offspring formed 3 years before Nirvana.
:|
See, I could get behind the Offspring. But Nirvana? C'mon.
I like about a third of the Offspring's stuff, because it's shouty in a good way.
Angry shouty > whiny shouty.
Uh, "Self-Esteem" ?
It even has the same goddamn riff as Teen Spirit
For better or for worse, they also paved the way for Green Day and The Offspring.
The Offspring formed 3 years before Nirvana.
:|
And nobody gave a shit about them until after Nirvana hit the scene.
Of course. :lulz:
Come to think of it, nobody gave a shit about Miley Cyrus before Nirvana hit the scene, either. Obviously, she owes it all to Kurt.
For better or for worse, they also paved the way for Green Day and The Offspring.
The Offspring formed 3 years before Nirvana.
:|
And nobody gave a shit about them until after Nirvana hit the scene.
Of course. :lulz:
Come to think of it, nobody gave a shit about Miley Cyrus before Nirvana hit the scene, either. Obviously, she owes it all to Kurt.
No, she owes it to being the daughter of Achy-Breaky Heart.
For better or for worse, they also paved the way for Green Day and The Offspring.
The Offspring formed 3 years before Nirvana.
:|
See, I could get behind the Offspring. But Nirvana? C'mon.
I like about a third of the Offspring's stuff, because it's shouty in a good way.
Angry shouty > whiny shouty.
Uh, "Self-Esteem" ?
It even has the same goddamn riff as Teen Spirit
Oh, hey, yeah, I said "a third of the Offspring's stuff".
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNG
As I gathered, you don't know what you are talking about. Thanks for confirmation!
You are a retard.
On the other hand, do you think a badass like Shin Jung-Hyeon belongs in some dusty mausoleum in Ohio, next to some whimpering An Hero like Kurt Cobain?
I don't.
The Smashing Pumpkins were languishing as a weird alt-metal band, relegated to Headbanger's Ball and 120 Minutes until Nirvana came along.
Another crime to lay at Nirvana's feet.
And where have the Smashing Pumpkins been, recently? Playing county fairs, perhaps?
On the other hand, do you think a badass like Shin Jung-Hyeon belongs in some dusty mausoleum in Ohio, next to some whimpering An Hero like Kurt Cobain?
I don't.
Good point.
They've poisoned the well by even considering such small talents as compared to those who really deserve the title of Legend. It'd practically be an insult, at this stage.
The worst part is, Nirvana WILL get in, and there WILL be a commemorative re-release, which means I may even have to hear Kurt's whimpering on the radio, for the amount of time it takes to thumb the stereo controls on the steering wheel.
For maybe a week.
The worst part is, Nirvana WILL get in, and there WILL be a commemorative re-release, which means I may even have to hear Kurt's whimpering on the radio, for the amount of time it takes to thumb the stereo controls on the steering wheel.
For maybe a week.
The worst part is, Nirvana WILL get in, and there WILL be a commemorative re-release, which means I may even have to hear Kurt's whimpering on the radio, for the amount of time it takes to thumb the stereo controls on the steering wheel.
For maybe a week.
Uh, In Utero has already been re-released because it is the 20 year anniversary.
Also, 20 year anniversary of his death is coming this April.
Better buck up bub!
The worst part is, Nirvana WILL get in, and there WILL be a commemorative re-release, which means I may even have to hear Kurt's whimpering on the radio, for the amount of time it takes to thumb the stereo controls on the steering wheel.
For maybe a week.
Exactly. Its a painfully shallow cash-grab, same as the engineered 'battle for number 1' we now get every fucking year at Christmas over here. This is invariably between the manufactured group of the moment from the Talent Search reality TV show with the best ratings, and a classic 'edgy' track we are told we should all buy in 'protest', which coincidentally happens to be owned by the same label.
Its not about the music, its about the money.
It occurs to me that I've been drawn into one of RWHNs threads again.
Its like watching a bad horror movie. You can predict pretty much what is going to happen every step of the way, and largely it is derogatory towards women, non-white folk, and people who enjoy marijuana.
it is derogatory towards women, non-white folk, and people who enjoy marijuana.
Its like watching a bad horror movie. You can predict pretty much what is going to happen every step of the way, and largely it is derogatory towards women, non-white folk, and people who enjoy marijuana.
If you think I'm talking about your reaction to DOUR, you're not paying attention.
If you think I'm talking about your reaction to DOUR, you're not paying attention.
If you think I'm talking about your reaction to DOUR, you're not paying attention.
I don't think YOU know what you are talking about because you aren't paying attention.
On the plus side, I'm alternating Korean Rock and Offspring and it's making for a pretty cool day.
The Offspring are awful.
Its like watching a bad horror movie. You can predict pretty much what is going to happen every step of the way, and largely it is derogatory towards women, non-white folk, and people who enjoy marijuana.
But smack is okay. :lulz:
If you think I'm talking about your reaction to DOUR, you're not paying attention.
I don't think YOU know what you are talking about because you aren't paying attention.
Its like watching a bad horror movie. You can predict pretty much what is going to happen every step of the way, and largely it is derogatory towards women, non-white folk, and people who enjoy marijuana.
But smack is okay. :lulz:
Its like watching a bad horror movie. You can predict pretty much what is going to happen every step of the way, and largely it is derogatory towards women, non-white folk, and people who enjoy marijuana.
But smack is okay. :lulz:
Of course! Smack doesn't threaten the pockets of his alcohol industry masters.
Beats the hell out of dealing with Nirvana all over the fucking place
You think Nirvana is more worthy than Cat Stevens, Deep Purple, and KISS.
Do you honestly believe that Nirvana should not be a first ballot inductee?
Even if you don't like them, their impact on music is undeniable. That would be like passing on the Beatles or the Rolling Stones the first time they were up.
The Offspring are awful.
Its like watching a bad horror movie. You can predict pretty much what is going to happen every step of the way, and largely it is derogatory towards women, non-white folk, and people who enjoy marijuana.
But smack is okay. :lulz:
The Offspring are awful.
Why? Because their lead didn't kill himself and skyrocket record sales to the point where the music penetrated the babble of your nascent self-aggrandizing?
Its like watching a bad horror movie. You can predict pretty much what is going to happen every step of the way, and largely it is derogatory towards women, non-white folk, and people who enjoy marijuana.
But smack is okay. :lulz:
No, I hate Godsmack too.
The Offspring are awful.
Why?
Its like watching a bad horror movie. You can predict pretty much what is going to happen every step of the way, and largely it is derogatory towards women, non-white folk, and people who enjoy marijuana.
But smack is okay. :lulz:
No, I hate Godsmack too.
You are a bit of an idiot, Beaker. No, you are an enormous idiot.
The Offspring are awful.
Why?
No, because their music is awful. One of their biggest hits was a Nirvana rip-off.
The Offspring are awful.
Why?
No, because their music is awful. One of their biggest hits was a Nirvana rip-off.
Its like watching a bad horror movie. You can predict pretty much what is going to happen every step of the way, and largely it is derogatory towards women, non-white folk, and people who enjoy marijuana.
But smack is okay. :lulz:
No, I hate Godsmack too.
You are a bit of an idiot, Beaker. No, you are an enormous idiot.
Says the guy who doesn't realize that he isn't leading. ;)
The Offspring are awful.
Why?
No, because their music is awful. One of their biggest hits was a Nirvana rip-off.
You do realize that Nirvana is really just a Pixies rip off, right? Right?
The Offspring are awful.
Why?
No, because their music is awful. One of their biggest hits was a Nirvana rip-off.
You do realize that Nirvana is really just a Pixies rip off, right? Right?
Teen Spirit was, yes. But it was a good rip-off at least.
I think we're all missing the most important thing here:
The Meters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma8ABYwo1Ew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X-6_0YqgeI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phUTCsVAKXA
The Offspring are awful.
Why?
No, because their music is awful. One of their biggest hits was a Nirvana rip-off.
You do realize that Nirvana is really just a Pixies rip off, right? Right?
Teen Spirit was, yes. But it was a good rip-off at least.
But by your STATED STANDARD, that means that Nirvana sucks.
The Offspring are awful.
Why?
No, because their music is awful. One of their biggest hits was a Nirvana rip-off.
You do realize that Nirvana is really just a Pixies rip off, right? Right?
Teen Spirit was, yes. But it was a good rip-off at least.
The Offspring are awful.
Why?
No, because their music is awful. One of their biggest hits was a Nirvana rip-off.
You do realize that Nirvana is really just a Pixies rip off, right? Right?
Teen Spirit was, yes. But it was a good rip-off at least.
Every song Nirvana did was basically the same thing. Even when they covered Lead Belly. Derivative is as derivative does.
I think we're all missing the most important thing here:
The Meters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma8ABYwo1Ew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X-6_0YqgeI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phUTCsVAKXA
Good stuff!
The Offspring are awful.
Why?
No, because their music is awful. One of their biggest hits was a Nirvana rip-off.
You do realize that Nirvana is really just a Pixies rip off, right? Right?
Teen Spirit was, yes. But it was a good rip-off at least.
But by your STATED STANDARD, that means that Nirvana sucks.
Every song Nirvana did was basically the same thing.
The Offspring are awful.
Why?
No, because their music is awful. One of their biggest hits was a Nirvana rip-off.
You do realize that Nirvana is really just a Pixies rip off, right? Right?
Teen Spirit was, yes. But it was a good rip-off at least.
But by your STATED STANDARD, that means that Nirvana sucks.
No it doesn't. The Offspring sucks without the obvious "Teen Spirit" clone song.
O.o So you were complaining that someone else ripped off Teen Spirit, up-thread, which is Heinous Crime. But someone points out Teen Spirit ripped off Pixies and that's cool? Right-o.
But basically what you are admitting is that, if anything, the Pixies are responsible for the groundbreaking music, and influencing the last 25 years. Not Nirvana.
I think we're all missing the most important thing here:
The Meters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma8ABYwo1Ew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X-6_0YqgeI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phUTCsVAKXA
Good stuff!
See, the way it works is this: You can hate Nirvana, or you can love Nirvana. Either way it goes, you still have an opinion in the matter.
But if you don't like the Meters, you don't like music. That's all there is to it.
The Offspring are awful.
Why?
No, because their music is awful. One of their biggest hits was a Nirvana rip-off.
You do realize that Nirvana is really just a Pixies rip off, right? Right?
Teen Spirit was, yes. But it was a good rip-off at least.
But by your STATED STANDARD, that means that Nirvana sucks.
O.o So you were complaining that someone else ripped off Teen Spirit, up-thread, which is Heinous Crime. But someone points out Teen Spirit ripped off Pixies and that's cool? Right-o.
The Offspring are awful.
Why?
No, because their music is awful. One of their biggest hits was a Nirvana rip-off.
You do realize that Nirvana is really just a Pixies rip off, right? Right?
Teen Spirit was, yes. But it was a good rip-off at least.
But by your STATED STANDARD, that means that Nirvana sucks.
No it doesn't. The Offspring sucks without the obvious "Teen Spirit" clone song.
But basically what you are admitting is that, if anything, the Pixies are responsible for the groundbreaking music, and influencing the last 25 years. Not Nirvana.
I think we're all missing the most important thing here:
The Meters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma8ABYwo1Ew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X-6_0YqgeI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phUTCsVAKXA
Good stuff!
See, the way it works is this: You can hate Nirvana, or you can love Nirvana. Either way it goes, you still have an opinion in the matter.
But if you don't like the Meters, you don't like music. That's all there is to it.
Thanks for this. :) I gotta go to work and I'm gonna have this in my head all day. It will be awesome.
You think Nirvana is more worthy than Cat Stevens, Deep Purple, and KISS.
And of course Nirvana will get in. Would you deny Michael Jordan entry to the NBA Hall of Fame?
You think Nirvana is more worthy than Cat Stevens, Deep Purple, and KISS.
The morning dump full of half-chewed spinach that I just left in my toilet is more worthy than KISS. Just sayin'.
You think Nirvana is more worthy than Cat Stevens, Deep Purple, and KISS.
The morning dump full of half-chewed spinach that I just left in my toilet is more worthy than KISS. Just sayin'.
And that's okay. I just think Nirvana is worse. :P
It is literally not possible to be worse than KISS.
(cue RWHN showing up to tell me what I do and don't actually know about a music scene that I was physically present for and socially involved in)
The only significant difference, as far as I can tell, is that none of those other bands got an album produced by Butch Vig. Who also produced several of the bands that RWHN is giving Nirvana credit for exposing and/or influencing. So maybe Butch Vig should be inducted in Nirvana's place?
Ok, I have to weigh in here... The real driving force behind the impact of Nevermind was... Butch Vig.
He grabbed a Pixies wanna-be band, and reworked the sound until it became commercially acceptable. He double-tracked the vocals, used click tracks for the drums, tightened up arrangements, dozens of guitar overdubs, and then calling in Andy Wallace to run all the tracks through as many effects as they could to smooth the rough edges.
Yeah, I said that Nevermind had no rough edges. Listen to Jesus Lizard's Liar or Goat released around the same time, and you'll know what I'm talking about. Kurt even said later that Nevermind "Looking back on the production of Nevermind, I'm embarrassed by it now. It's closer to a Mötley Crüe record than it is a punk rock record."
If Nirvana hadn't brought in Butch, Nevermind would have sounded like Bleach 2. And gone nowhere. Vig, who later went on to produce Smashing Pumpkins, L7, Sonic Youth (Dirty, if you couldn't guess), Soul Asylum, AFI, Jimmy Eat World, Green Day, and Foo Fighters, and of course, Garbage, found a key piece of the puzzle: If you want to make a band mainstream, make them sound mainstream. He showed you could take literally any band and give them commercial appeal if you took away the sharp, buzzy, uncomfortable noises, and made them smooth and palatable.
Again, if anyone wants to argue that Nevermind isn't a soothing album, I can give examples of plenty of albums released in 1991-92 that tear the pants off of that record and grinds it a new asshole.
Bands are nominated, are put on ballots, and then people vote.
That's the critera.NirvanaThe Pixies created a seismic shift in the music scene that paved the way for tons of alternative bands. Fuck, they even allowed greater exposure for their influences. Sonic Youth, Meat Puppets, Vaselines, etc., etc.,
Of course I recognize that I'm (foolishly) expecting people who fawn over and worship at the feet of Ms. Wrecking Ball to have at least a modicum of musical cultural awareness.
i also sense some bitterness from punk purists, coloring opinions.
Of course I recognize that I'm (foolishly) expecting people who fawn over and worship at the feet of Ms. Wrecking Ball to have at least a modicum of musical cultural awareness.
Of course I recognize that I'm (foolishly) expecting people who fawn over and worship at the feet of Ms. Wrecking Ball to have at least a modicum of musical cultural awareness.
i also sense some bitterness from punk purists, coloring opinions.
Dude, I have never heard a Miley Cyrus song, and can barely stand punk. Your opinion is bogus on this matter.
Of course I recognize that I'm (foolishly) expecting people who fawn over and worship at the feet of Ms. Wrecking Ball to have at least a modicum of musical cultural awareness.
i also sense some bitterness from punk purists, coloring opinions.
Dude, I have never heard a Miley Cyrus song, and can barely stand punk. Your opinion is bogus on this matter.
Hoops, you have to understand...If you don't think Miley Cyrus is a LOUDMOUTHED SLUT WHORE then you are obviously a great fan of hers, musically.
RWHN is a little fixated on her, on account of LOUDMOUTH SLUT WHORE WOMAN WHO SPEAKS BEFORE SHE'S SPOKEN TO.
He gets that way.
Bands are nominated, are put on ballots, and then people vote.
That's the critera.NirvanaThe Pixies created a seismic shift in the music scene that paved the way for tons of alternative bands. Fuck, they even allowed greater exposure for their influences. Sonic Youth, Meat Puppets, Vaselines, etc., etc.,
Bands are nominated, are put on ballots, and then people vote.
That's the critera.NirvanaThe Pixies created a seismic shift in the music scene that paved the way for tons of alternative bands. Fuck, they even allowed greater exposure for their influences. Sonic Youth, Meat Puppets, Vaselines, etc., etc.,
You can't be serious.
Bands are nominated, are put on ballots, and then people vote.
That's the critera.NirvanaHoobastank created a seismic shift in the music scene that paved the way for tons of alternative bands. Fuck, they even allowed greater exposure for their influences. Sonic Youth, Meat Puppets, Vaselines, etc., etc.,
Of course I recognize that I'm (foolishly) expecting people who fawn over and worship at the feet of Ms. Wrecking Ball to have at least a modicum of musical cultural awareness.
i also sense some bitterness from punk purists, coloring opinions.
Dude, I have never heard a Miley Cyrus song, and can barely stand punk. Your opinion is bogus on this matter.
Of course I recognize that I'm (foolishly) expecting people who fawn over and worship at the feet of Ms. Wrecking Ball to have at least a modicum of musical cultural awareness.
i also sense some bitterness from punk purists, coloring opinions.
Dude, I have never heard a Miley Cyrus song, and can barely stand punk. Your opinion is bogus on this matter.
Hoops, you have to understand...If you don't think Miley Cyrus is a LOUDMOUTHED SLUT WHORE then you are obviously a great fan of hers, musically.
RWHN is a little fixated on her, on account of LOUDMOUTH SLUT WHORE WOMAN WHO SPEAKS BEFORE SHE'S SPOKEN TO.
He gets that way.
Yeah, I've been noticing. So, Nirvana good... Miley bad. Got it. I wonder what his thoughts on Courtney are. I bet he thinks she murdered Kurt.
Of course I recognize that I'm (foolishly) expecting people who fawn over and worship at the feet of Ms. Wrecking Ball to have at least a modicum of musical cultural awareness.
i also sense some bitterness from punk purists, coloring opinions.
Dude, I have never heard a Miley Cyrus song, and can barely stand punk. Your opinion is bogus on this matter.
So every other music critic or expert who have written about the massive impact of Nirvana on music also have bogus opinions?
Of course I recognize that I'm (foolishly) expecting people who fawn over and worship at the feet of Ms. Wrecking Ball to have at least a modicum of musical cultural awareness.
i also sense some bitterness from punk purists, coloring opinions.
Dude, I have never heard a Miley Cyrus song, and can barely stand punk. Your opinion is bogus on this matter.
Hoops, you have to understand...If you don't think Miley Cyrus is a LOUDMOUTHED SLUT WHORE then you are obviously a great fan of hers, musically.
RWHN is a little fixated on her, on account of LOUDMOUTH SLUT WHORE WOMAN WHO SPEAKS BEFORE SHE'S SPOKEN TO.
He gets that way.
Yeah, I've been noticing. So, Nirvana good... Miley bad. Got it. I wonder what his thoughts on Courtney are. I bet he thinks she murdered Kurt.
Obvious suicide is obvious.
Courtney is awful and obviously has ridden his/Nirvana's coattails. Please don't tell me you think they would have had success without Nirvana.
Of course I recognize that I'm (foolishly) expecting people who fawn over and worship at the feet of Ms. Wrecking Ball to have at least a modicum of musical cultural awareness.
i also sense some bitterness from punk purists, coloring opinions.
Dude, I have never heard a Miley Cyrus song, and can barely stand punk. Your opinion is bogus on this matter.
Hoops, you have to understand...If you don't think Miley Cyrus is a LOUDMOUTHED SLUT WHORE then you are obviously a great fan of hers, musically.
RWHN is a little fixated on her, on account of LOUDMOUTH SLUT WHORE WOMAN WHO SPEAKS BEFORE SHE'S SPOKEN TO.
He gets that way.
Yeah, I've been noticing. So, Nirvana good... Miley bad. Got it. I wonder what his thoughts on Courtney are. I bet he thinks she murdered Kurt.
Obvious suicide is obvious.
Courtney is awful and obviously has ridden his/Nirvana's coattails. Please don't tell me you think they would have had success without Nirvana.
The amount of success? No. But she was arguably somewhat successful long before she knew Kurt... she's in Sid and Nancy, which came out in 1986, long before anyone heard of Nirvana. But, being his Yoko certainly helped a lot.
Cobain's suicide sealed the deal; without it they would have been just another 90's alt band, and not THE 90's alt band in so many people's minds.
Nirvana were huge when Cobain killed himself. What sealed the deal was the fact that they engaged so many through their music. One of the things Kurt struggled with was the fact that they were drawing not just the weirdos into left-of-center music. They were drawing the jocks, the preppies, the rich kids, the middle class kids, the poor kids, boys and girls, the smart kids, everyone. "Come As You Are".
It wasn't just going to be any band. Yes, there was a generation of kids waiting for a band or music movement to come along that would speak to them and include them. Hair metal wasn't doing it, the pop mainstream of the day wasn't doing it. Nirvana rumbled in with "Teen Spirit" and youth culture responded with a "Fuck Yes".
Pearl Jam couldn't have done that, Soundgarden couldn't, AIC couldn't. Nirvana was the only band set up to do that. And there hasn't been a band that has done that since.
Period.
Were you all in comas during the 90s?
You think the alternative music scene would have been as big without Nirvana? If so, who had the capacity to draw in as many different segments of youth culture as Nirvana did?
This thread has been in a loop since page 2.
Which reminds me of something. But what?
I think Blink 182 should be in the Hall of Fame because they invented GreenDay and then Sum 41. Changed my life forever, man!:lol:
Besides, if Nirvana was so popular, that can only mean they were sellouts and thus inauthentic and undeserving of the Hall of Fame.
I nominate the band that smashes away every so often in one of the apartment buildings near me, because no-one has heard of them, so they are the most authentic of all.
I think Blink 182 should be in the Hall of Fame because they invented GreenDay and then Sum 41.
Nirvana were huge when Cobain killed himself. What sealed the deal was the fact that they engaged so many through their music. One of the things Kurt struggled with was the fact that they were drawing not just the weirdos into left-of-center music. They were drawing the jocks, the preppies, the rich kids, the middle class kids, the poor kids, boys and girls, the smart kids, everyone. "Come As You Are".
It wasn't just going to be any band. Yes, there was a generation of kids waiting for a band or music movement to come along that would speak to them and include them. Hair metal wasn't doing it, the pop mainstream of the day wasn't doing it. Nirvana rumbled in with "Teen Spirit" and youth culture responded with a "Fuck Yes".
Pearl Jam couldn't have done that, Soundgarden couldn't, AIC couldn't. Nirvana was the only band set up to do that. And there hasn't been a band that has done that since.
Period.
You and I are close to the same age... what sort of high school did you go to? At my school Nirvana was certainly very popular (to my dismay) but equally so, at that time, was Pearl Jam and a plethora of other "alternative" bands I loathed. You know what else was extremely popular with the youth? Probably more so? Hip fucking hop. The 90s were not the niche market you seem to recall.
I think Blink 182 should be in the Hall of Fame because they invented GreenDay and then Sum 41. Changed my life forever, man!
Besides, if Nirvana was so popular, that can only mean they were sellouts and thus inauthentic and undeserving of the Hall of Fame.
I nominate the band that smashes away every so often in one of the apartment buildings near me, because no-one has heard of them, so they are the most authentic of all.
I think Blink 182 should be in the Hall of Fame because they invented GreenDay and then Sum 41.
:trolling:
Nirvana were huge when Cobain killed himself. What sealed the deal was the fact that they engaged so many through their music. One of the things Kurt struggled with was the fact that they were drawing not just the weirdos into left-of-center music. They were drawing the jocks, the preppies, the rich kids, the middle class kids, the poor kids, boys and girls, the smart kids, everyone. "Come As You Are".
It wasn't just going to be any band. Yes, there was a generation of kids waiting for a band or music movement to come along that would speak to them and include them. Hair metal wasn't doing it, the pop mainstream of the day wasn't doing it. Nirvana rumbled in with "Teen Spirit" and youth culture responded with a "Fuck Yes".
Pearl Jam couldn't have done that, Soundgarden couldn't, AIC couldn't. Nirvana was the only band set up to do that. And there hasn't been a band that has done that since.
Period.
You and I are close to the same age... what sort of high school did you go to? At my school Nirvana was certainly very popular (to my dismay) but equally so, at that time, was Pearl Jam and a plethora of other "alternative" bands I loathed. You know what else was extremely popular with the youth? Probably more so? Hip fucking hop. The 90s were not the niche market you seem to recall.
I think a lot of people forget just how insanely popular Pearl Jam was. By the time Cobain died, Pearl Jam was far more popular than Nirvana. Unfortunately.
You know who was a big fucking deal in the music scene? THE band? You already know this; it was the Pixies.
You can't be serious.
Nirvana were huge when Cobain killed himself. What sealed the deal was the fact that they engaged so many through their music. One of the things Kurt struggled with was the fact that they were drawing not just the weirdos into left-of-center music. They were drawing the jocks, the preppies, the rich kids, the middle class kids, the poor kids, boys and girls, the smart kids, everyone. "Come As You Are".
It wasn't just going to be any band. Yes, there was a generation of kids waiting for a band or music movement to come along that would speak to them and include them. Hair metal wasn't doing it, the pop mainstream of the day wasn't doing it. Nirvana rumbled in with "Teen Spirit" and youth culture responded with a "Fuck Yes".
Pearl Jam couldn't have done that, Soundgarden couldn't, AIC couldn't. Nirvana was the only band set up to do that. And there hasn't been a band that has done that since.
Period.
You and I are close to the same age... what sort of high school did you go to? At my school Nirvana was certainly very popular (to my dismay) but equally so, at that time, was Pearl Jam and a plethora of other "alternative" bands I loathed. You know what else was extremely popular with the youth? Probably more so? Hip fucking hop. The 90s were not the niche market you seem to recall.
I think a lot of people forget just how insanely popular Pearl Jam was. By the time Cobain died, Pearl Jam was far more popular than Nirvana. Unfortunately.
You know who was a big fucking deal in the music scene? THE band? You already know this; it was the Pixies.
I tried to tell him that... this is what I got for my effort:You can't be serious.
Nirvana were huge when Cobain killed himself. What sealed the deal was the fact that they engaged so many through their music. One of the things Kurt struggled with was the fact that they were drawing not just the weirdos into left-of-center music. They were drawing the jocks, the preppies, the rich kids, the middle class kids, the poor kids, boys and girls, the smart kids, everyone. "Come As You Are".
It wasn't just going to be any band. Yes, there was a generation of kids waiting for a band or music movement to come along that would speak to them and include them. Hair metal wasn't doing it, the pop mainstream of the day wasn't doing it. Nirvana rumbled in with "Teen Spirit" and youth culture responded with a "Fuck Yes".
Pearl Jam couldn't have done that, Soundgarden couldn't, AIC couldn't. Nirvana was the only band set up to do that. And there hasn't been a band that has done that since.
Period.
You and I are close to the same age... what sort of high school did you go to? At my school Nirvana was certainly very popular (to my dismay) but equally so, at that time, was Pearl Jam and a plethora of other "alternative" bands I loathed. You know what else was extremely popular with the youth? Probably more so? Hip fucking hop. The 90s were not the niche market you seem to recall.
I think a lot of people forget just how insanely popular Pearl Jam was. By the time Cobain died, Pearl Jam was far more popular than Nirvana. Unfortunately.
You know who was a big fucking deal in the music scene? THE band? You already know this; it was the Pixies.
I tried to tell him that... this is what I got for my effort:You can't be serious.
The Pixies were a cult, college band with a very niche audience.
Were you all in comas during the 90s?
I would like to take a moment to point out that RWHN was still literally a child in some Maine backwoods when Nirvana emerged. I was here and into the music scene in Olympia and Portland... FFS, Nirvana opened for my boyfriend's band at Satyricon, and I worked with guys from Sweaty Nipples and Hitting Birth. Nervous Xtians were still popular, you could see 3 bands for 3 bucks Tuesday nights at Pine Street/La Luna, and I was writing and doing photography for the local music paper in Portland. The reality was, A BAND was going to get tapped to be repackaged for popular consumption because alt rock was skyrocketing in popularity, and everybody was a little baffled that it was Nirvana, but like I said before, Cobain was photogenic. Nirvana's popularity was an effect of the rising popularity and marketability of alt rock, not a cause. This is obvious to anyone who was actually THERE. Which RWHN wasn't, and is clearly piecing together his notions about how it went from magazine retrospectives. Cobain's suicide sealed the deal; without it they would have been just another 90's alt band, and not THE 90's alt band in so many people's minds.
The Pixies were a cult, college band with a very niche audience.
At this point, the attempt to shit is making a "phweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" noise. If RWHN had a colostomy bag, it would pop like a balloon at this point, showering him and his computer with all the horrible bound up poop that he's been compressing all these years.
It's possible that the separation of mass would fling him out of his cubicle, like an Atlas rocket full of shit, a mobile fire hose of scat that whipsaws back and forth, killing half of his fellow preventionists and forever scarring the rest.
The Pixies were a cult, college band with a very niche audience.
At this point, the attempt to shit is making a "phweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" noise. If RWHN had a colostomy bag, it would pop like a balloon at this point, showering him and his computer with all the horrible bound up poop that he's been compressing all these years.
It's possible that the separation of mass would fling him out of his cubicle, like an Atlas rocket full of shit, a mobile fire hose of scat that whipsaws back and forth, killing half of his fellow preventionists and forever scarring the rest.
WHY DOES HE WEAR THAT HUGE SUIT? WHAT IS HE HIDING? MEGACOLON? OR THE REMNANTS OF A THOUSAND PUNCTURED COLOSTOMY BAGS?
Is there some cure for this horrible malady?
One accessible to the average WHN, i mean.
One significant risk is that the high frequency of the farts will create an oscillation in the ass cheeks, causing them to ripple like those guys' faces in old NASA footage of G-force testing. Nothing good can come from this...The danger to nearby personnel is pretty obvious, and who wants THAT in their obituary? "Killed by wildly flapping ass cheeks. Closed casket funeral. Please send donations in leiu of flowers, etc".
The only real hope when this happens is that he'll fart again, thus interrupting the forming wave. Of course this has its own risks, as it may in fact cause the very rupture discussed upthread, resulting in the destruction of Maine and rendering Quebec uninhabitable for hundreds of years. Sort of a poop-Fukishima.
This entire argument is predicated on the idea that he is in possession of an ass in the first place. If he is incapable of filling a suit, it must surely follow that he is not in possession of a "booty"
I just wanted to add that Roger's posts ITT have been awesome.
I would like to take a moment to point out that RWHN was still literally a child in some Maine backwoods when Nirvana emerged. I was here and into the music scene in Olympia and Portland... FFS, Nirvana opened for my boyfriend's band at Satyricon, and I worked with guys from Sweaty Nipples and Hitting Birth. Nervous Xtians were still popular, you could see 3 bands for 3 bucks Tuesday nights at Pine Street/La Luna, and I was writing and doing photography for the local music paper in Portland. The reality was, A BAND was going to get tapped to be repackaged for popular consumption because alt rock was skyrocketing in popularity, and everybody was a little baffled that it was Nirvana, but like I said before, Cobain was photogenic. Nirvana's popularity was an effect of the rising popularity and marketability of alt rock, not a cause. This is obvious to anyone who was actually THERE. Which RWHN wasn't, and is clearly piecing together his notions about how it went from magazine retrospectives. Cobain's suicide sealed the deal; without it they would have been just another 90's alt band, and not THE 90's alt band in so many people's minds.
Nirvana were huge when Cobain killed himself. What sealed the deal was the fact that they engaged so many through their music. One of the things Kurt struggled with was the fact that they were drawing not just the weirdos into left-of-center music. They were drawing the jocks, the preppies, the rich kids, the middle class kids, the poor kids, boys and girls, the smart kids, everyone. "Come As You Are".
It wasn't just going to be any band. Yes, there was a generation of kids waiting for a band or music movement to come along that would speak to them and include them. Hair metal wasn't doing it, the pop mainstream of the day wasn't doing it. Nirvana rumbled in with "Teen Spirit" and youth culture responded with a "Fuck Yes".
Pearl Jam couldn't have done that, Soundgarden couldn't, AIC couldn't. Nirvana was the only band set up to do that. And there hasn't been a band that has done that since.
Period.
You and I are close to the same age... what sort of high school did you go to? At my school Nirvana was certainly very popular (to my dismay) but equally so, at that time, was Pearl Jam and a plethora of other "alternative" bands I loathed. You know what else was extremely popular with the youth? Probably more so? Hip fucking hop. The 90s were not the niche market you seem to recall.
Hey, don't bring Siouxie into this...
Well, could we at least not correlate her with Nirvana?
And of course Nirvana will get in. Would you deny Michael Jordan entry to the NBA Hall of Fame?
And of course Nirvana will get in. Would you deny Michael Jordan entry to the NBA Hall of Fame?
(http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x151/rattlesnakeroot/blogger%202/6fabcbd4e236968b0704509acefb6d56.gif)
I thought Nirvana and Pearl Jam were the same thing for a long time. As soon as the whining screeching started, I changed the station. Couldn't stand their voices.
Nirvana were huge when Cobain killed himself. What sealed the deal was the fact that they engaged so many through their music. One of the things Kurt struggled with was the fact that they were drawing not just the weirdos into left-of-center music. They were drawing the jocks, the preppies, the rich kids, the middle class kids, the poor kids, boys and girls, the smart kids, everyone. "Come As You Are".
It wasn't just going to be any band. Yes, there was a generation of kids waiting for a band or music movement to come along that would speak to them and include them. Hair metal wasn't doing it, the pop mainstream of the day wasn't doing it. Nirvana rumbled in with "Teen Spirit" and youth culture responded with a "Fuck Yes".
Pearl Jam couldn't have done that, Soundgarden couldn't, AIC couldn't. Nirvana was the only band set up to do that. And there hasn't been a band that has done that since.
Period.
You and I are close to the same age... what sort of high school did you go to? At my school Nirvana was certainly very popular (to my dismay) but equally so, at that time, was Pearl Jam and a plethora of other "alternative" bands I loathed. You know what else was extremely popular with the youth? Probably more so? Hip fucking hop. The 90s were not the niche market you seem to recall.
Nevermind broke during my freshman year. Most of the kids were listening to shitty hip-hop (Vanilla Ice was HUGE) and the kids who were actually into the local rock scene were mostly into Mudhoney, Sweaty Nipples, Rhino Humpers, and Gruntruck. Nirvana was for the weird kids who watched 120 Minutes and liked Siouxsie and the Banshees.
I thought Nirvana and Pearl Jam were the same thing for a long time. As soon as the whining screeching started, I changed the station. Couldn't stand their voices.
They don't sound even remotely similar.
I think we need to recognize Nirvana's huge cultural impact, specifically for influencing this man:
(http://sigg3.net/users/blog/explore/getimg.php?image=/arseface.jpg)
RWHN is very tight with his opinion. It makes him tight in the ass. I imagine he spends much of his time in the men's room, trying to take a shit, moaning and groaning. All that he ever produces, I'm guessing, are pathetic little high-pitched farts. Every time one of his co-workers goes to take a piss he's in a stall..."ARGH!", "Pahleeeze!", "Oh for the love of GAAAAAAAAAWD!"
It's the same everywhere in America. The asses are so tight that they squeak. Everyone has big thick cushions on their chairs to ease the pain. They walk with short choppy steps, buttocks tense. It's comical once you notice it. After you notice it you can't ignore it and keep a straight face. It's like being in one of those old time movies, a Charlie Chaplin movie.
RWHN-nation (pun incidental & unavoidable, so shut up). A nation of people obsessed with what other people do or like, who insist that their opinion is so superior to yours that they will bludgeon you with it until you give up in disgust. Who can't take a proper shit to save their lives, because the stress of being the Smartest Guy in the Room has given them terminal buttlock.
Friends, has your asshole shrunk down? Does eating vegetables make you sound like a referee's whistle? Can your farts lance a hole in your jeans, on account of them being one fart-molecule thick? Have you screamed your pain at an unused roll of toilet paper and an uncaring universe?
Sounds like YOU need to relax. Take some Slack™, the laxative of the Gods. SHIT THAT HATE, OR YOU WILL DIE. Leave being terminally right to people who obsess over that sort of thing (RWHN, for example...It's long past being too late for HIS bunghole, which by now is a geometric point).
Shit your pants. It's the only hope you have.
The Pixies were a cult, college band with a very niche audience.
At this point, the attempt to shit is making a "phweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" noise. If RWHN had a colostomy bag, it would pop like a balloon at this point, showering him and his computer with all the horrible bound up poop that he's been compressing all these years.
It's possible that the separation of mass would fling him out of his cubicle, like an Atlas rocket full of shit, a mobile fire hose of scat that whipsaws back and forth, killing half of his fellow preventionists and forever scarring the rest.
The Pixies were a cult, college band with a very niche audience.
At this point, the attempt to shit is making a "phweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" noise. If RWHN had a colostomy bag, it would pop like a balloon at this point, showering him and his computer with all the horrible bound up poop that he's been compressing all these years.
It's possible that the separation of mass would fling him out of his cubicle, like an Atlas rocket full of shit, a mobile fire hose of scat that whipsaws back and forth, killing half of his fellow preventionists and forever scarring the rest.
WHY DOES HE WEAR THAT HUGE SUIT? WHAT IS HE HIDING? MEGACOLON? OR THE REMNANTS OF A THOUSAND PUNCTURED COLOSTOMY BAGS?
When the bags all fill up, he looks like Luca Brasi from The Godfather, straining the suit beyond anything any clothes manufacturer could have reasonably been expected to anticipate.
What we saw was RWHN with the bags offloaded prior to testimony. It's a reasonable precaution, he wouldn't want one of the bags to rupture on local television...And certainly not in the sheriff's office, right next to a cop. Can you even imagine? They'd STILL be doing the nightstick rhumba on him, down in the "special" cell in the basement.
Is there some cure for this horrible malady?
One accessible to the average WHN, i mean.
No, for them it is too late. The most that can be done is to KEEP YOUR DISTANCE. At some unguessable point, he will go off like fucking Mount Krakatoa. The shock wave will certainly reach Boston, possible even as far as parts of Florida.
In Maine, the devastation will be spectacular. Imagine the surface of the moon, but with poop instead of regolith. People will speculate and compare it to Taguska or the Barringer Crater, but they will all be wrong. It will be one of those horrible anomolies that only We here at The Church will understand, and we will keep that knowledge secret for the good of society, just as we have with the Judge Crater disappearance, the assassination of JFK, and what Nixon REALLY said to Agnew that night they were drunkenly prostrating themselves in front of Abe Lincoln's portrait in the White House.
One significant risk is that the high frequency of the farts will create an oscillation in the ass cheeks, causing them to ripple like those guys' faces in old NASA footage of G-force testing. Nothing good can come from this...The danger to nearby personnel is pretty obvious, and who wants THAT in their obituary? "Killed by wildly flapping ass cheeks. Closed casket funeral. Please send donations in leiu of flowers, etc".
The only real hope when this happens is that he'll fart again, thus interrupting the forming wave. Of course this has its own risks, as it may in fact cause the very rupture discussed upthread, resulting in the destruction of Maine and rendering Quebec uninhabitable for hundreds of years. Sort of a poop-Fukishima.
Wow, does he seriously think that the Pixies were a "college band with a niche audience"? :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: I won't say disconnected, because that implies that he was ever connected in the first place. Wonder if he's ever even heard Joy Division or PIL?
It's just an example, but the point is that Nirvana was more the province of the alt-rock crowd. All the kids in school who already knew about them because they had Bleach were the weird kids with dirty fingernails and black hoodies with too-long sleeves with thumbholes cut in them and the only girl in 9th grade who had an eyebrow ring.
Wow, does he seriously think that the Pixies were a "college band with a niche audience"? :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: I won't say disconnected, because that implies that he was ever connected in the first place. Wonder if he's ever even heard Joy Division or PIL?
I don't know. They were pretty underground.
Hi guys, I listen to this new artist called Robin Thicke. He's pretty underground, you probably haven't heard of him.
Wow, does he seriously think that the Pixies were a "college band with a niche audience"? :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: I won't say disconnected, because that implies that he was ever connected in the first place. Wonder if he's ever even heard Joy Division or PIL?
I don't know. They were pretty underground.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: Does that mean they're "authentic"?
I thought Nirvana and Pearl Jam were the same thing for a long time. As soon as the whining screeching started, I changed the station. Couldn't stand their voices.
They don't sound even remotely similar.
It all sounded like garbage at the time. Sorry.
I thought Nirvana and Pearl Jam were the same thing for a long time. As soon as the whining screeching started, I changed the station. Couldn't stand their voices.
They don't sound even remotely similar.
It all sounded like garbage at the time. Sorry.
(http://www.lemec.net/billeder/garbageband.jpg)
Nirvana were huge when Cobain killed himself. What sealed the deal was the fact that they engaged so many through their music. One of the things Kurt struggled with was the fact that they were drawing not just the weirdos into left-of-center music. They were drawing the jocks, the preppies, the rich kids, the middle class kids, the poor kids, boys and girls, the smart kids, everyone. "Come As You Are".
It wasn't just going to be any band. Yes, there was a generation of kids waiting for a band or music movement to come along that would speak to them and include them. Hair metal wasn't doing it, the pop mainstream of the day wasn't doing it. Nirvana rumbled in with "Teen Spirit" and youth culture responded with a "Fuck Yes".
Pearl Jam couldn't have done that, Soundgarden couldn't, AIC couldn't. Nirvana was the only band set up to do that. And there hasn't been a band that has done that since.
Period.
You and I are close to the same age... what sort of high school did you go to? At my school Nirvana was certainly very popular (to my dismay) but equally so, at that time, was Pearl Jam and a plethora of other "alternative" bands I loathed. You know what else was extremely popular with the youth? Probably more so? Hip fucking hop. The 90s were not the niche market you seem to recall.
Nevermind broke during my freshman year. Most of the kids were listening to shitty hip-hop (Vanilla Ice was HUGE) and the kids who were actually into the local rock scene were mostly into Mudhoney, Sweaty Nipples, Rhino Humpers, and Gruntruck. Nirvana was for the weird kids who watched 120 Minutes and liked Siouxsie and the Banshees.
Yes, initially, when you could only see their videos on 120 Minutes and Headbanger's Ball. But then they broke it open, and then everyone was into them.
Wow, does he seriously think that the Pixies were a "college band with a niche audience"? :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: I won't say disconnected, because that implies that he was ever connected in the first place. Wonder if he's ever even heard Joy Division or PIL?
They [Pixies] were almost unknown outside of alt / indie circles when they were actually releasing albums. But the subsequent popularity of bands whom they influenced - Nirvana mostly - made them popular years after they broke up. Hence their reformation and multiple tours (still smaller venues - but as headliners) in the last decade.
I always view their history as similar to the Velvet Underground - who are in the Hall I believe, so I do think the Pixies have a chance.
However...without the explosion of Nirvana, the Pixies would probably be a footnote. Even more reason why Nirvana deserve first-ballot election. Not only were they hugely influential but their impact extended backwards to one of their main influences who reaped the benefits.
I thought Nirvana and Pearl Jam were the same thing for a long time. As soon as the whining screeching started, I changed the station. Couldn't stand their voices.
They don't sound even remotely similar.
It all sounded like garbage at the time. Sorry.
(http://www.lemec.net/billeder/garbageband.jpg)
:lol:
Nirvana were huge when Cobain killed himself. What sealed the deal was the fact that they engaged so many through their music. One of the things Kurt struggled with was the fact that they were drawing not just the weirdos into left-of-center music. They were drawing the jocks, the preppies, the rich kids, the middle class kids, the poor kids, boys and girls, the smart kids, everyone. "Come As You Are".
It wasn't just going to be any band. Yes, there was a generation of kids waiting for a band or music movement to come along that would speak to them and include them. Hair metal wasn't doing it, the pop mainstream of the day wasn't doing it. Nirvana rumbled in with "Teen Spirit" and youth culture responded with a "Fuck Yes".
Pearl Jam couldn't have done that, Soundgarden couldn't, AIC couldn't. Nirvana was the only band set up to do that. And there hasn't been a band that has done that since.
Period.
You and I are close to the same age... what sort of high school did you go to? At my school Nirvana was certainly very popular (to my dismay) but equally so, at that time, was Pearl Jam and a plethora of other "alternative" bands I loathed. You know what else was extremely popular with the youth? Probably more so? Hip fucking hop. The 90s were not the niche market you seem to recall.
Nevermind broke during my freshman year. Most of the kids were listening to shitty hip-hop (Vanilla Ice was HUGE) and the kids who were actually into the local rock scene were mostly into Mudhoney, Sweaty Nipples, Rhino Humpers, and Gruntruck. Nirvana was for the weird kids who watched 120 Minutes and liked Siouxsie and the Banshees.
Yes, initially, when you could only see their videos on 120 Minutes and Headbanger's Ball. But then they broke it open, and then everyone was into them.
And by "everyone" you mean "angsty junior high school kids with no friends". Which, now that I think about it, makes perfect sense. :lol:
When she's eligible I will lead a goddamn movement dedicated to her induction.
Not because I think she deserves it, but because the singularity of butthurt RWHN would become could solve the energy crisis.
To be eligible for induction as an artist (as a performer, composer, or musician) into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the artist must have released a record, in the generally accepted sense of that phrase, at least 25 years prior to the year of induction; and have demonstrated unquestionable musical excellence.
We shall consider factors such as an artist's musical influence on other artists, length and depth of career and the body of work, innovation and superiority in style and technique, but musical excellence shall be the essential qualification of induction.
A former member of the nominations board once commented that "At one point Suzan Evans lamented the choices being made because there weren't enough big names that would sell tickets to the dinner. That was quickly remedied by dropping one of the doo-wop groups being considered in favor of a 'name' artist...I saw how certain pioneering artists of the '50s and early '60s were shunned because there needed to be more name power on the list, resulting in '70s superstars getting in before the people who made it possible for them. Some of those pioneers still aren't in today.
Miley doesn't fit that bill, pretty much any of the past and present pop princesses are disqualified. I can see a case for Madonna, but that's about it.
I thought Nirvana and Pearl Jam were the same thing for a long time. As soon as the whining screeching started, I changed the station. Couldn't stand their voices.
They don't sound even remotely similar.
It all sounded like garbage at the time. Sorry.
To repeat:
To be eligible for induction as an artist (as a performer, composer, or musician) into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the artist must have released a record, in the generally accepted sense of that phrase, at least 25 years prior to the year of induction; and have demonstrated unquestionable musical excellence.
We shall consider factors such as an artist's musical influence on other artists, length and depth of career and the body of work, innovation and superiority in style and technique, but musical excellence shall be the essential qualification of induction.
How many people ITT are voters for the HOF?
That's right. Zero
It doesn't, but in regard to the criteria I posted, whether or not a band fits that mold ultimately is up to those empowered to vote in the inductees. So whether or not it is questioned on PD.COM is irrelevant.
As far as a discussion on a discussion board, of course it is relevant. But when it comes to the actual process of inducting, utilizing the aforementioned criteria, it is of course irrelevant what any of us think.
But, seriously, anyone who thinks Nirvana should not be inducted first ballot, whether you like them or not, you're just not rational. I hate the fucking Beatles but completely agree with them being in the HOF.
I am, however, reveling in the irony of you championing a band that mostly sang about being dopesick because of their lasting influence on society.
That part, friends and neighbors, is pretty friggin' hilarious.
I thought Nirvana and Pearl Jam were the same thing for a long time. As soon as the whining screeching started, I changed the station. Couldn't stand their voices.
They don't sound even remotely similar.
It all sounded like garbage at the time. Sorry.
That's because Garbage was also produced by Butch Vig.
Thread merger with all of the previous RWHN threads, since they are all the same? It's like he's had explosive diarrhea all over the board. Maybe he should get that checked out, because he's been pissing out of his ass for months now, and we're forced to wallow in it.
Or
:?
I want to put something in context, Reverend WHN.
In 1995, I was ten. I didn't know what the hell Nirvana was, much less that Kurt Cobain had died the year before. I do remember a darn good Bill Nye parody of "Smells like Teen Spirit" called "Air Pressure", but I didn't even understand the connection till I was out of High School. I was listening to music my parents listened to, classic rock and the like. By the time I had gotten to an age where I might have cared about Nirvana, their time was long since passed. The early 2000s were full of shitty music on the radio, but I was by that point deeply into classical guitar and didn't listen to the radio anyway.
In other words, I really don't have any opinions about Nirvana. And it seems like the people who really do, who really like them, all are of a certain age, where they were in their late teens or early twenties during the early 90's, of a certain high school or college scene, and certain image. The only other people who seem to care about that band are the ones who make money off of it, or are critics trying to buy their way into that crowd. From my (limited) standpoint, it seems to be a whole lot of hype that didn't stand the test of time. But YMMV; come ask me again in 20 years.
Vernon Reid of Living Colour sees the front man (http://www.musicroom.com/blog/music-news/said%20Jonathan%20Poneman,%20co-founder%20of%20Sub%20Pop,) as a lightning rod: “Cobain changed the course of where the music went […] There are certain people where you can see the axis of musical history twisting on them: Hendrix was pivotal, Prince was pivotal, Cobain was pivotal.”
Your point is moot. Why? I don't care, that's why. Obviously Kurt Cobain didn't care, since he took a lot of drugs and then offed himself. Course, he was over the age of 18, so you don't really care either.
You can talk all day how you think Nirvana was the most influential, greatest band or whatever, but when it comes down to it, none of us agree with you.
I frankly don't understand it, and I don't think I would unless I was part of that pseudo-rebellious scene. [size=78%]And it's a bit funny to me you identify with them[/size][/size]
On the other hand, you also seem to have allies in the alcohol industry. Like an onion, you have many layers of hypocrisy.
Having a common enemy and being allies are two very different things.
I thought Nirvana and Pearl Jam were the same thing for a long time. As soon as the whining screeching started, I changed the station. Couldn't stand their voices.
They don't sound even remotely similar.
It all sounded like garbage at the time. Sorry.
That's because Garbage was also produced by Butch Vig.
Having a common enemy and being allies are two very different things.
You were the one that said "allies". Please see my sig.
I thought Nirvana and Pearl Jam were the same thing for a long time. As soon as the whining screeching started, I changed the station. Couldn't stand their voices.
They don't sound even remotely similar.
It all sounded like garbage at the time. Sorry.
That's because Garbage was also produced by Butch Vig.
That guy gets around.
Having a common enemy and being allies are two very different things.
You were the one that said "allies". Please see my sig.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
And the "common enemy" is pot, but he's enamored with the (false) idea that a junkie is GOD TO A WHOLE GENERATION.
Having a common enemy and being allies are two very different things.
You were the one that said "allies". Please see my sig.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
And the "common enemy" is pot, but he's enamored with the (false) idea that a junkie is GOD TO A WHOLE GENERATION.
Your point is moot. Why? I don't care, that's why. Obviously Kurt Cobain didn't care, since he took a lot of drugs and then offed himself. Course, he was over the age of 18, so you don't really care either.
That's a very easy judgement for you to make. How do you know he didn't care? Drug addiction is a disease of the brain, it isn't so cut and dry to just say that someone doesn't care. Same with suicide. He was a person who certainly had some mental health issues that were not being addressed.
QuoteYou can talk all day how you think Nirvana was the most influential, greatest band or whatever, but when it comes down to it, none of us agree with you.
That's okay. But there are many, many who do agree with me, including many professionals in the music industry, and they will be inducted first ballot.
QuoteI frankly don't understand it, and I don't think I would unless I was part of that pseudo-rebellious scene. [size=78%]And it's a bit funny to me you identify with them[/size][/size]
I wasn't part of any "pseudo-rebellious" scene and it was plain as day to me. I was a bit of a weirdo, but I was the straight-A, college prep kid. I was a hair metal fan, and still am a fan of that music. But hair metal is party music, it is very surface-level. For kids with a bit more of an EQ, a band like Nirvana hit all of the right marks. it was a bit deeper than, "Hey let's get drunk and fuck!". Not that there is anything wrong with that ( KISS ), but it isn't very deep.
QuoteOn the other hand, you also seem to have allies in the alcohol industry. Like an onion, you have many layers of hypocrisy.Having a common enemy and being allies are two very different things.
I thought Nirvana and Pearl Jam were the same thing for a long time. As soon as the whining screeching started, I changed the station. Couldn't stand their voices.
They don't sound even remotely similar.
It all sounded like garbage at the time. Sorry.
That's because Garbage was also produced by Butch Vig.
That guy gets around.
He produces pop music. It's his job.
I thought Nirvana and Pearl Jam were the same thing for a long time. As soon as the whining screeching started, I changed the station. Couldn't stand their voices.
They don't sound even remotely similar.
It all sounded like garbage at the time. Sorry.
That's because Garbage was also produced by Butch Vig.
That guy gets around.
He produces pop music. It's his job.
nopE
Your point is moot. Why? I don't care, that's why. Obviously Kurt Cobain didn't care, since he took a lot of drugs and then offed himself. Course, he was over the age of 18, so you don't really care either.
That's a very easy judgement for you to make. How do you know he didn't care? Drug addiction is a disease of the brain, it isn't so cut and dry to just say that someone doesn't care. Same with suicide. He was a person who certainly had some mental health issues that were not being addressed.
You seem to be operating under the assumption of Cartesian duality; whether he was ill or depressed, he still didn't care. Which is irrelevant; I sure know /you/ don't care (the point). You've said as much before, that your moral community doesn't include anyone over the age of 18.QuoteQuoteYou can talk all day how you think Nirvana was the most influential, greatest band or whatever, but when it comes down to it, none of us agree with you.
That's okay. But there are many, many who do agree with me, including many professionals in the music industry, and they will be inducted first ballot.
The HoF is irrelevant to deciding what is worth listening to.QuoteQuoteI frankly don't understand it, and I don't think I would unless I was part of that pseudo-rebellious scene. [size=78%]And it's a bit funny to me you identify with them[/size][/size]
I wasn't part of any "pseudo-rebellious" scene and it was plain as day to me. I was a bit of a weirdo, but I was the straight-A, college prep kid. I was a hair metal fan, and still am a fan of that music. But hair metal is party music, it is very surface-level. For kids with a bit more of an EQ, a band like Nirvana hit all of the right marks. it was a bit deeper than, "Hey let's get drunk and fuck!". Not that there is anything wrong with that ( KISS ), but it isn't very deep.
Thus the pseudo-rebellion. Pseudo being a common prefix meaning "false". You.../do/ know that, right?QuoteQuoteOn the other hand, you also seem to have allies in the alcohol industry. Like an onion, you have many layers of hypocrisy.Having a common enemy and being allies are two very different things.
Sure they are. And at 10:52 PM on October 8th, 2013, you said, and I quote, "So I took a public jab at the folks at MPP and gained an interesting new ally. The liquor industry. " Your words. Now, I couldn't care less who your "bedfellows" are. To me, it's just another layer of hypocrisy, just another reason to dislike you. Phox left because of your nonsense, and I doubt she is coming back. So what I want is for you to leave, and to not come back.
I thought Nirvana and Pearl Jam were the same thing for a long time. As soon as the whining screeching started, I changed the station. Couldn't stand their voices.
They don't sound even remotely similar.
It all sounded like garbage at the time. Sorry.
That's because Garbage was also produced by Butch Vig.
That guy gets around.
He produces pop music. It's his job.
nopE
Sure they are. And at 10:52 PM on October 8th, 2013, you said, and I quote, "So I took a public jab at the folks at MPP and gained an interesting new ally. The liquor industry. " Your words. Now, I couldn't care less who your "bedfellows" are. To me, it's just another layer of hypocrisy, just another reason to dislike you. Phox left because of your nonsense, and I doubt she is coming back. So what I want is for you to leave, and to not come back.
Your point is moot. Why? I don't care, that's why. Obviously Kurt Cobain didn't care, since he took a lot of drugs and then offed himself. Course, he was over the age of 18, so you don't really care either.
That's a very easy judgement for you to make. How do you know he didn't care? Drug addiction is a disease of the brain, it isn't so cut and dry to just say that someone doesn't care. Same with suicide. He was a person who certainly had some mental health issues that were not being addressed.
You seem to be operating under the assumption of Cartesian duality; whether he was ill or depressed, he still didn't care. Which is irrelevant; I sure know /you/ don't care (the point). You've said as much before, that your moral community doesn't include anyone over the age of 18.QuoteQuoteYou can talk all day how you think Nirvana was the most influential, greatest band or whatever, but when it comes down to it, none of us agree with you.
That's okay. But there are many, many who do agree with me, including many professionals in the music industry, and they will be inducted first ballot.
The HoF is irrelevant to deciding what is worth listening to.QuoteQuoteI frankly don't understand it, and I don't think I would unless I was part of that pseudo-rebellious scene. [size=78%]And it's a bit funny to me you identify with them[/size][/size]
I wasn't part of any "pseudo-rebellious" scene and it was plain as day to me. I was a bit of a weirdo, but I was the straight-A, college prep kid. I was a hair metal fan, and still am a fan of that music. But hair metal is party music, it is very surface-level. For kids with a bit more of an EQ, a band like Nirvana hit all of the right marks. it was a bit deeper than, "Hey let's get drunk and fuck!". Not that there is anything wrong with that ( KISS ), but it isn't very deep.
Thus the pseudo-rebellion. Pseudo being a common prefix meaning "false". You.../do/ know that, right?QuoteQuoteOn the other hand, you also seem to have allies in the alcohol industry. Like an onion, you have many layers of hypocrisy.Having a common enemy and being allies are two very different things.
Sure they are. And at 10:52 PM on October 8th, 2013, you said, and I quote, "So I took a public jab at the folks at MPP and gained an interesting new ally. The liquor industry. " Your words. Now, I couldn't care less who your "bedfellows" are. To me, it's just another layer of hypocrisy, just another reason to dislike you. Phox left because of your nonsense, and I doubt she is coming back. So what I want is for you to leave, and to not come back.
There is no hypocrisy. All I was saying was that we are allies in the sense that we have a common enemy. I'm not allowed to receive any financial support from them, and they REALLY want to fund the opposition. And I wouldn't formally align with them because they'd turn around and try to sabatoge our efforts to change policies to reduce access to alcohol.
Phox left because of THAT asswipe?
That sucks. Because Phoxy could net-stomp RWHN with both hands tied behind her back.
I know, I know, not even worth the effort.
FUCK.
I mean, Jesus Christ, how old are you?
Net-Stomp.
I mean, I'm glad you have a jolly time here in Teh Wonderful World of Make-Believe, but for chrissakes wake up.
All this huff and puff on this site about how broken and fucked everything is here and you guys get your panties in a twist over a random stranger spag who thinks a little differently thant you. obsessing over "net-stomping" that spag.
C'mon, don't you see how fucked that is? How about some IRL stomping of some actual problems in the world.
Stop being so fucking pathetic.
There is no hypocrisy. All I was saying was that we are allies in the sense that we have a common enemy. I'm not allowed to receive any financial support from them, and they REALLY want to fund the opposition. And I wouldn't formally align with them because they'd turn around and try to sabatoge our efforts to change policies to reduce access to alcohol.
You are allies, you aren't allies, you are allies. Sounds like an onion to me. Leave.
Phox left because of THAT asswipe?
That sucks. Because Phoxy could net-stomp RWHN with both hands tied behind her back.
I know, I know, not even worth the effort.
FUCK.
It was the main contributing factor. I probably shouldn't have said anything, but I'm just so sick of this, it's turning the place nasty.I mean, Jesus Christ, how old are you?
Net-Stomp.
I mean, I'm glad you have a jolly time here in Teh Wonderful World of Make-Believe, but for chrissakes wake up.
All this huff and puff on this site about how broken and fucked everything is here and you guys get your panties in a twist over a random stranger spag who thinks a little differently thant you. obsessing over "net-stomping" that spag.
C'mon, don't you see how fucked that is? How about some IRL stomping of some actual problems in the world.
Stop being so fucking pathetic.
That's the problem, though, isn't it? May 19th, 2005. That's more than 8 years I've known you. And yet you play yourself off as a random stranger. Miserable excuse for a friend, is what it is. Pathetic, yes, is what it is. Miserable fake. I became an adult here. I learned how to write and think critically here. I worked through some of the toughest, stupidest shit in my life with these folks, which is admittedly little shits compared to others, but it's my shit, and I /owned/ it. And I met the love of my life here. And as many times as I've been ticked off at Roger, or Cain, or Nigel, or the inverse, I still hold the deepest respect for them, value them as people, think only the best of them, which is probably why it hurts so much when we don't get along.
But you? You were apparently never even a person, for all I thought I knew you. Leave.
(http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/dog1.png)
There is no hypocrisy. All I was saying was that we are allies in the sense that we have a common enemy. I'm not allowed to receive any financial support from them, and they REALLY want to fund the opposition. And I wouldn't formally align with them because they'd turn around and try to sabatoge our efforts to change policies to reduce access to alcohol.
Thread split please, you can put the drug posts into the current drug thread.
Thanks.
There is no hypocrisy. All I was saying was that we are allies in the sense that we have a common enemy. I'm not allowed to receive any financial support from them, and they REALLY want to fund the opposition. And I wouldn't formally align with them because they'd turn around and try to sabatoge our efforts to change policies to reduce access to alcohol.
You are allies, you aren't allies, you are allies. Sounds like an onion to me. Leave.
Phox left because of THAT asswipe?
That sucks. Because Phoxy could net-stomp RWHN with both hands tied behind her back.
I know, I know, not even worth the effort.
FUCK.
It was the main contributing factor. I probably shouldn't have said anything, but I'm just so sick of this, it's turning the place nasty.I mean, Jesus Christ, how old are you?
Net-Stomp.
I mean, I'm glad you have a jolly time here in Teh Wonderful World of Make-Believe, but for chrissakes wake up.
All this huff and puff on this site about how broken and fucked everything is here and you guys get your panties in a twist over a random stranger spag who thinks a little differently thant you. obsessing over "net-stomping" that spag.
C'mon, don't you see how fucked that is? How about some IRL stomping of some actual problems in the world.
Stop being so fucking pathetic.
That's the problem, though, isn't it? May 19th, 2005. That's more than 8 years I've known you. And yet you play yourself off as a random stranger. Miserable excuse for a friend, is what it is. Pathetic, yes, is what it is. Miserable fake. I became an adult here. I learned how to write and think critically here. I worked through some of the toughest, stupidest shit in my life with these folks, which is admittedly little shits compared to others, but it's my shit, and I /owned/ it. And I met the love of my life here. And as many times as I've been ticked off at Roger, or Cain, or Nigel, or the inverse, I still hold the deepest respect for them, value them as people, think only the best of them, which is probably why it hurts so much when we don't get along.
But you? You were apparently never even a person, for all I thought I knew you. Leave.
There is no hypocrisy. All I was saying was that we are allies in the sense that we have a common enemy. I'm not allowed to receive any financial support from them, and they REALLY want to fund the opposition. And I wouldn't formally align with them because they'd turn around and try to sabatoge our efforts to change policies to reduce access to alcohol.
You are allies, you aren't allies, you are allies. Sounds like an onion to me. Leave.
Phox left because of THAT asswipe?
That sucks. Because Phoxy could net-stomp RWHN with both hands tied behind her back.
I know, I know, not even worth the effort.
FUCK.
It was the main contributing factor. I probably shouldn't have said anything, but I'm just so sick of this, it's turning the place nasty.I mean, Jesus Christ, how old are you?
Net-Stomp.
I mean, I'm glad you have a jolly time here in Teh Wonderful World of Make-Believe, but for chrissakes wake up.
All this huff and puff on this site about how broken and fucked everything is here and you guys get your panties in a twist over a random stranger spag who thinks a little differently thant you. obsessing over "net-stomping" that spag.
C'mon, don't you see how fucked that is? How about some IRL stomping of some actual problems in the world.
Stop being so fucking pathetic.
That's the problem, though, isn't it? May 19th, 2005. That's more than 8 years I've known you. And yet you play yourself off as a random stranger. Miserable excuse for a friend, is what it is. Pathetic, yes, is what it is. Miserable fake. I became an adult here. I learned how to write and think critically here. I worked through some of the toughest, stupidest shit in my life with these folks, which is admittedly little shits compared to others, but it's my shit, and I /owned/ it. And I met the love of my life here. And as many times as I've been ticked off at Roger, or Cain, or Nigel, or the inverse, I still hold the deepest respect for them, value them as people, think only the best of them, which is probably why it hurts so much when we don't get along.
But you? You were apparently never even a person, for all I thought I knew you. Leave.
Ok, this. Kai is one of the smartest, kindest, most open to feedback people I know. That I've never met.
That you've pissed Ki off is horrible.
Ok, this. Kai is one of the smartest, kindest, most open to feedback people I know. That I've never met.
That you've pissed Ki off is horrible.
"Kick me out because I haven't got the balls to just leave"
Ok, this. Kai is one of the smartest, kindest, most open to feedback people I know. That I've never met.
That you've pissed Ki off is horrible.
It would've been nice if, as a supposed friend, you had shown even a modicum of this concern back when people were dragging my personal life (my divorce especially) into drug debates. Nope. You sat on your thumbs out of fear of publicly disagreeing with the rank and file, either that or you agreed with my personal laundry being fair game, either way, given this, you are free to go and poind sand LMNO. Your words are hollow.
Now, I am perfectly willing to leave, there is only one condition that must be met. My account is completely deleted. If that can happen, I will leave. There are certain developments that have occurred where not having a digital trail here might be helpful. So if admin can delete my account, I will happliy head off into the sunset.
Surely this one time you could make an exception? Every rule ... and all that :?
I'm fine with that. I think Rod Stewart is rotting in a gutter somewhere and the dreadful hours hasn't been feeling very poetic lately.
So yeah, admin team, consider this my request for account deletion.
I mean, if i really am the monkeywrench everyone claims, it seems like it is a pretty easy decison to make.
I'm fine with that. I think Rod Stewart is rotting in a gutter somewhere and the dreadful hours hasn't been feeling very poetic lately.
So yeah, admin team, consider this my request for account deletion.
I mean, if i really am the monkeywrench everyone claims, it seems like it is a pretty easy decison to make.
I'm fine with that. I think Rod Stewart is rotting in a gutter somewhere and the dreadful hours hasn't been feeling very poetic lately.
So yeah, admin team, consider this my request for account deletion.
I mean, if i really am the monkeywrench everyone claims, it seems like it is a pretty easy decison to make.
PM ECH. No public request will be considered.
I'm fine with that. I think Rod Stewart is rotting in a gutter somewhere and the dreadful hours hasn't been feeling very poetic lately.
So yeah, admin team, consider this my request for account deletion.
I mean, if i really am the monkeywrench everyone claims, it seems like it is a pretty easy decison to make.
You're not a monkey wrench, you're just a fucking tool.
I'm fine with that. I think Rod Stewart is rotting in a gutter somewhere and the dreadful hours hasn't been feeling very poetic lately.
So yeah, admin team, consider this my request for account deletion.
I mean, if i really am the monkeywrench everyone claims, it seems like it is a pretty easy decison to make.
PM ECH. No public request will be considered.
Why not? I'm all about transparency.
I'm fine with that. I think Rod Stewart is rotting in a gutter somewhere and the dreadful hours hasn't been feeling very poetic lately.
So yeah, admin team, consider this my request for account deletion.
I mean, if i really am the monkeywrench everyone claims, it seems like it is a pretty easy decison to make.
You're not a monkey wrench, you're just a fucking tool.
I wasn't speaking to you.
Ok, this. Kai is one of the smartest, kindest, most open to feedback people I know. That I've never met.
That you've pissed Ki off is horrible.
It would've been nice if, as a supposed friend, you had shown even a modicum of this concern back when people were dragging my personal life (my divorce especially) into drug debates. Nope. You sat on your thumbs out of fear of publicly disagreeing with the rank and file, either that or you agreed with my personal laundry being fair game, either way, given this, you are free to go and poind sand LMNO. Your words are hollow.
Now, I am perfectly willing to leave, there is only one condition that must be met. My account is completely deleted. If that can happen, I will leave. There are certain developments that have occurred where not having a digital trail here might be helpful. So if admin can delete my account, I will happliy head off into the sunset.
Or we could all just stop feeding into his ongoing meltdown. He's only disruptive because we all, apparently, love to be disrupted. He's just fucking trolling.
And no, we don't delete accounts.
And no, we don't delete accounts.
HMMMM. From what I've heard, It can and has been done in the past.
And no, we don't delete accounts.
HMMMM. From what I've heard, It can and has been done in the past.
And no, we don't delete accounts.
HMMMM. From what I've heard, It can and has been done in the past.
Actually, no. At least, not under the current regime. I can't speak for what may have happened when Lauren ran the place.
And no, we don't delete accounts.
HMMMM. From what I've heard, It can and has been done in the past.
Actually, no. At least, not under the current regime. I can't speak for what may have happened when Lauren ran the place.
Lauren ran the place from, let's say, 2008-2012? SRS question just wondering
I started The Discordian Network before we did the BIP. Don't remember the exact date or anything but I think it was sometime in 2006
And no, we don't delete accounts.
HMMMM. From what I've heard, It can and has been done in the past.
Yeah? Which account did you hear about? We've banned accounts, but I can't think of any we've erased.
You've got the cart before the horse.
And I laid out my terms. I'll leave if my account is deleted.
On second thought, I'm okay with him being erased. That way I don't have to be reminded of my gullibility. Reverend who? I've already forgotten. Not like he was anything substantive anyway. This was all a great big game of pretend life.
And no, we don't delete accounts.
HMMMM. From what I've heard, It can and has been done in the past.
Actually, no. At least, not under the current regime. I can't speak for what may have happened when Lauren ran the place.
Lauren ran the place from, let's say, 2008-2012? SRS question just wondering
On second thought, I'm okay with him being erased. That way I don't have to be reminded of my gullibility. Reverend who? I've already forgotten. Not like he was anything substantive anyway. This was all a great big game of pretend life.
The community got exactly what it wanted. After it decided that I was a villain because of my views and opinions, I became a villain. Go back and look at those drug threads, look at how everyone froths at the mouth to get personal digs in, dragging in some very personal aspects of my personnel life. And tell me this isn't what they wanted, including the people you look up to.
I vote that we give RWHN several more accounts and don't let him leave until he smokes the whole pack.
And no, we don't delete accounts.
HMMMM. From what I've heard, It can and has been done in the past.
Yeah? Which account did you hear about? We've banned accounts, but I can't think of any we've erased.
Not sure of the account. Awhile back I ran into some guy over at stucknut.com bragging about all of the accounts of his that had been erased because of his incessant trolling. But it's probably not even true anyway.
On second thought, I'm okay with him being erased. That way I don't have to be reminded of my gullibility. Reverend who? I've already forgotten. Not like he was anything substantive anyway. This was all a great big game of pretend life.
The community got exactly what it wanted. After it decided that I was a villain because of my views and opinions, I became a villain. Go back and look at those drug threads, look at how everyone froths at the mouth to get personal digs in, dragging in some very personal aspects of my personnel life. And tell me this isn't what they wanted, including the people you look up to.
Adding a dash of "wounded martyr" to the butthurt stew? :lol:
You've got the cart before the horse.
And I laid out my terms. I'll leave if my account is deleted.
So you can be the special snowflake who got deleted from PD? :lulz:
I think not. You can just leave, like everyone else who isn't here.
On second thought, I'm okay with him being erased. That way I don't have to be reminded of my gullibility. Reverend who? I've already forgotten. Not like he was anything substantive anyway. This was all a great big game of pretend life.
The community got exactly what it wanted. After it decided that I was a villain because of my views and opinions, I became a villain. Go back and look at those drug threads, look at how everyone froths at the mouth to get personal digs in, dragging in some very personal aspects of my personnel life. And tell me this isn't what they wanted, including the people you look up to.
Kai, You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. But if you can link up that claim, that I started the dragging of people's personal lives into drug threads, I will leave.
Show me where I dragged people's kids, wives, or ex-wives into the debate.
And then explain to me why you think that is justifiable.
I haven't said shit about anyone's father.
You buy in blindly to the strawmen built by your heroes.
Maybe someone should "net-stomp" me, teach me a lesson.
:lulz:
Maybe someone should "net-stomp" me, teach me a lesson.
:lulz:
It's a waste of her time to even talk to you, much less call you out.
And therein lies the problem. Blind allegiance.
Whatever happened to Think For Yourself, Schmuck?
Maybe someone should "net-stomp" me, teach me a lesson.
:lulz:
It's a waste of her time to even talk to you, much less call you out.
I got a "net-sassin" once, and barely survived it, I suppose a "net-stomping" might be a little more serious.
:lulz:
And therein lies the problem. Blind allegiance.
Whatever happened to Think For Yourself, Schmuck?
A man who I still argue with, who called me nearly every week for /years/, who has forgiven me plenty of bullshit. That's called friendship, but what would you know of it?
Maybe someone should "net-stomp" me, teach me a lesson.
:lulz:
It's a waste of her time to even talk to you, much less call you out.
I got a "net-sassin" once, and barely survived it, I suppose a "net-stomping" might be a little more serious.
:lulz:
You were an asshole who got personal, and received personal in return.
And therein lies the problem. Blind allegiance.
Whatever happened to Think For Yourself, Schmuck?
A man who I still argue with, who called me nearly every week for /years/, who has forgiven me plenty of bullshit. That's called friendship, but what would you know of it?
Plenty, with people who observe the whole "treat how you want to be treated" idea. If someone wants to treat me like an enemy because of my viewpoints, then that is what they'll get from me.
Especially people who make shit up and perpetuate it without anyone questioning.
Maybe someone should "net-stomp" me, teach me a lesson.
:lulz:
It's a waste of her time to even talk to you, much less call you out.
I got a "net-sassin" once, and barely survived it, I suppose a "net-stomping" might be a little more serious.
:lulz:
You were an asshole who got personal, and received personal in return.
Prove it.
Can everyone hear CPD furiously digging through my old posts?
Maybe someone should "net-stomp" me, teach me a lesson.
:lulz:
I'm not one who is to keen about taking orders. My terms remain as they were laid out.
"Net-Stomping".
:lulz:
Do you hold little army guys and make "pew pew" sounds when you are "net-stomping" ?
I'm not one who is to keen about taking orders. My terms remain as they were laid out.
:spittake:
RWHN's "terms". :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Not going to happen.
Maybe someone should "net-stomp" me, teach me a lesson.
:lulz:
I'm not one who is to keen about taking orders. My terms remain as they were laid out.
Does anyone else find it a little, off, that he pays such close attention to details of my personal life?
On second thought, I'm okay with him being erased. That way I don't have to be reminded of my gullibility. Reverend who? I've already forgotten. Not like he was anything substantive anyway. This was all a great big game of pretend life.
The community got exactly what it wanted. After it decided that I was a villain because of my views and opinions, I became a villain. Go back and look at those drug threads, look at how everyone froths at the mouth to get personal digs in, dragging in some very personal aspects of my personnel life. And tell me this isn't what they wanted, including the people you look up to.
You've got the cart before the horse.
And I laid out my terms. I'll leave if my account is deleted.
it would be terrible if his adoring public found out he was sleeping with beer.You've got the cart before the horse.
And I laid out my terms. I'll leave if my account is deleted.
What, and wreck the trail? :lulz:
it would be terrible if his adoring public found out he was sleeping with beer.You've got the cart before the horse.
And I laid out my terms. I'll leave if my account is deleted.
What, and wreck the trail? :lulz:
On second thought, I'm okay with him being erased. That way I don't have to be reminded of my gullibility. Reverend who? I've already forgotten. Not like he was anything substantive anyway. This was all a great big game of pretend life.
The community got exactly what it wanted. After it decided that I was a villain because of my views and opinions, I became a villain. Go back and look at those drug threads, look at how everyone froths at the mouth to get personal digs in, dragging in some very personal aspects of my personnel life. And tell me this isn't what they wanted, including the people you look up to.
Also get a suit that fits.
Also get a suit that fits.
On second thought, I'm okay with him being erased. That way I don't have to be reminded of my gullibility. Reverend who? I've already forgotten. Not like he was anything substantive anyway. This was all a great big game of pretend life.
The community got exactly what it wanted. After it decided that I was a villain because of my views and opinions, I became a villain. Go back and look at those drug threads, look at how everyone froths at the mouth to get personal digs in, dragging in some very personal aspects of my personnel life. And tell me this isn't what they wanted, including the people you look up to.
I never did this once. I went into those threads with avoiding that specifically in mind (actually part of my meditation training at the time), and only tried to bring up things I could link to sources. I always argued from a position of respect, as you do influence your community, and any genuine, new information I could shoot your way would only benefit said community.
When you started spinning in circles, and ignoring corrections-made-by-the-authors-of-studies-you-had-cited-from-DEA-websites, and refused to pay attention to anyone who said "[citation needed]", well then the sarcasm-laced-knives came out and I SHUT THE HELL UP AND MOVED TO THE BACK.
I seriously disagreed with some of the things that were said, but I ain't nobody's internet white knight and you dug that hole yourself.
In short: You and your over-generalizations can Fuck Off.
You've got the cart before the horse.
And I laid out my terms. I'll leave if my account is deleted.
You've got the cart before the horse.
And I laid out my terms. I'll leave if my account is deleted.
It is policy not to delete accounts. There are a number of reasons for this, in some cases it is for my legal protection (we might delete the account but every post will stay as will the user name associated with it).
In others its because old threads look really confusing if you have removed a load of messages from them.
I'm sorry if that's not the answer you were hoping for but you must appreciate an adherence to policy.
On second thought, I'm okay with him being erased. That way I don't have to be reminded of my gullibility. Reverend who? I've already forgotten. Not like he was anything substantive anyway. This was all a great big game of pretend life.
The community got exactly what it wanted. After it decided that I was a villain because of my views and opinions, I became a villain. Go back and look at those drug threads, look at how everyone froths at the mouth to get personal digs in, dragging in some very personal aspects of my personnel life. And tell me this isn't what they wanted, including the people you look up to.
Well, here's the disconnect, RWHN. You're not a villain because of your opinions and views.
On second thought, I'm okay with him being erased. That way I don't have to be reminded of my gullibility. Reverend who? I've already forgotten. Not like he was anything substantive anyway. This was all a great big game of pretend life.
The community got exactly what it wanted. After it decided that I was a villain because of my views and opinions, I became a villain. Go back and look at those drug threads, look at how everyone froths at the mouth to get personal digs in, dragging in some very personal aspects of my personnel life. And tell me this isn't what they wanted, including the people you look up to.
Well, here's the disconnect, RWHN. You're not a villain because of your opinions and views.
Bullshit.
So, in a nutshell, rwhn demand account deleted so his boss wont find his posts and realise he's an imbecile.
He goes about this by spamming the board with more and more, increasingly idiotic posts.
:?
:banana:
So, in a nutshell, rwhn demand account deleted so his boss wont find his posts and realise he's an imbecile.
He goes about this by spamming the board with more and more, increasingly idiotic posts.
:?
:banana:
Where is that post from awhile back where he said the other people where he works with would be LOST WITHOUT HIS SUPERIOR RWHN BRAINZ(TM)? That needs to be linked in ALL THE RWHN THREADS. :lulz:
Oh, and the stuff about the Black lady at work who allegedly had the hots for him.
How are you going to "not allow" anything? You have no control over what a dip-shit does IRL, and you even aid and abet them by
A) posting my real name and
B) making up bullshit that they gladly eat up.
Like the whole "black lady" at work thing. Complete fabrication, but people believe it because you perpetuated it.
If you REALLY are concerned about people taking this IRL, you could help by not posting my name and making up shit.
But you are A-OK with greasing the wheels apparently.
So, in a nutshell, rwhn demand account deleted so his boss wont find his posts and realise he's an imbecile.
He goes about this by spamming the board with more and more, increasingly idiotic posts.
:?
:banana:
Where is that post from awhile back where he said the other people where he works with would be LOST WITHOUT HIS SUPERIOR RWHN BRAINZ(TM)? That needs to be linked in ALL THE RWHN THREADS. :lulz:
Oh, and the stuff about the Black lady at work who allegedly had the hots for him.
Getting a little close to IRLing the argument, here. I disagree - and won't allow - deliberate attempts to fuck him or anyone else over in any IRL sense. What comes out of HIS mouth is his own problem. He doesn't seem to need any help in that department.
This isn't to say you can't quote him. But I don't want to see any attempts to google bomb him.
Of course, just like all the other times either of us stuck up for him, that will somehow be turned around in his head to us either condoning it, or standing idly by while people threaten to google bomb his reputation.
You've perpetuated the made up bullshit too, including the "black lady" at work fairy tale.
You've perpetuated the made up bullshit too, including the "black lady" at work fairy tale.
You said I did that, but I don't remember it. You of course didn't provide a link. Of course.
You've perpetuated the made up bullshit too, including the "black lady" at work fairy tale.
You said I did that, but I don't remember it. You of course didn't provide a link. Of course.
Like the whole "black lady" at work thing. Complete fabrication, but people believe it because you perpetuated it.
On second thought, I'm okay with him being erased. That way I don't have to be reminded of my gullibility. Reverend who? I've already forgotten. Not like he was anything substantive anyway. This was all a great big game of pretend life.
The community got exactly what it wanted. After it decided that I was a villain because of my views and opinions, I became a villain. Go back and look at those drug threads, look at how everyone froths at the mouth to get personal digs in, dragging in some very personal aspects of my personnel life. And tell me this isn't what they wanted, including the people you look up to.
I never did this once. I went into those threads with avoiding that specifically in mind (actually part of my meditation training at the time), and only tried to bring up things I could link to sources. I always argued from a position of respect, as you do influence your community, and any genuine, new information I could shoot your way would only benefit said community.
When you started spinning in circles, and ignoring corrections-made-by-the-authors-of-studies-you-had-cited-from-DEA-websites, and refused to pay attention to anyone who said "[citation needed]", well then the sarcasm-laced-knives came out and I SHUT THE HELL UP AND MOVED TO THE BACK.
I seriously disagreed with some of the things that were said, but I ain't nobody's internet white knight and you dug that hole yourself.
In short: You and your over-generalizations can Fuck Off.
The thing with your father is another example. There was a thread about putting personal information on the internet and I simply said a good rule of thumb is less = better. I had no idea that the thread was predicated on something that happened to your father and I cleared that up as soon as I figured it out. But that hasn't stopped you from perpetuating this myth that I KNOWINGLY was taking a poke at your father.
The thing with your father is another example. There was a thread about putting personal information on the internet and I simply said a good rule of thumb is less = better. I had no idea that the thread was predicated on something that happened to your father and I cleared that up as soon as I figured it out. But that hasn't stopped you from perpetuating this myth that I KNOWINGLY was taking a poke at your father.
That, right there, is a bunch of shit. You gloated.
So, you know, I am surprisingly low on sympathy for your cause, here.
The thing with your father is another example. There was a thread about putting personal information on the internet and I simply said a good rule of thumb is less = better. I had no idea that the thread was predicated on something that happened to your father and I cleared that up as soon as I figured it out. But that hasn't stopped you from perpetuating this myth that I KNOWINGLY was taking a poke at your father.
That, right there, is a bunch of shit. You gloated.
So, you know, I am surprisingly low on sympathy for your cause, here.
You've never been able to prove that.
How are you going to "not allow" anything? You have no control over what a dip-shit does IRL, and you even aid and abet them by
A) posting my real name and
B) making up bullshit that they gladly eat up.
Like the whole "black lady" at work thing. Complete fabrication, but people believe it because you perpetuated it. If you REALLY are concerned about people taking this IRL, you could help by not posting my name and making up shit.
How are you going to "not allow" anything? You have no control over what a dip-shit does IRL, and you even aid and abet them by
A) posting my real name and
B) making up bullshit that they gladly eat up.
Like the whole "black lady" at work thing. Complete fabrication, but people believe it because you perpetuated it. If you REALLY are concerned about people taking this IRL, you could help by not posting my name and making up shit.
So, in a nutshell, rwhn demand account deleted so his boss wont find his posts and realise he's an imbecile.
He goes about this by spamming the board with more and more, increasingly idiotic posts.
:?
:banana:
Where is that post from awhile back where he said the other people where he works with would be LOST WITHOUT HIS SUPERIOR RWHN BRAINZ(TM)? That needs to be linked in ALL THE RWHN THREADS. :lulz:
Oh, and the stuff about the Black lady at work who allegedly had the hots for him.
Getting a little close to IRLing the argument, here. I disagree - and won't allow - deliberate attempts to fuck him or anyone else over in any IRL sense. What comes out of HIS mouth is his own problem. He doesn't seem to need any help in that department.
This isn't to say you can't quote him. But I don't want to see any attempts to google bomb him.
Here's the score dipshit.
Between DOUR and RWHN, only one person has posted any personal information of another user on this website.
Here's your hint: it wasn't me.
As much as I dislike DOUR, I would never post any of his IRL information, nor anyone else's. That's just low.
But to date you and Stella have threatned it, and DOUR has actually done it.
But I'm glad you've finally admitted that you are a cyberstalker.
Here's the score dipshit.
Between DOUR and RWHN, only one person has posted any personal information of another user on this website.
Here's your hint: it wasn't me.
As much as I dislike DOUR, I would never post any of his IRL information, nor anyone else's. That's just low.
But to date you and Stella have threatned it, and DOUR has actually done it.
But I'm glad you've finally admitted that you are a cyberstalker.
It wasn't hard finding out everything I know with the video of you in that horrible suit. How are you surprised by this? Remember I have a man crush on you.
It wasn't hard finding out everything I know with the video of you in that horrible suit. How are you surprised by this? Remember I have a man crush on you.
Like I said, cyberstalker.
says that asshole who posted a link to a newspaper article the he wrote and was published with his name in it.
"People know who I am"
"STOP THEM FROM FINDING OUT ABOUT ME!!!"
And by the way, a video that I didn't post here. Someone else found it and linked it here.
says that asshole who posted a link to a newspaper article the he wrote and was published with his name in it.
"People know who I am"
"STOP THEM FROM FINDING OUT ABOUT ME!!!"
says that asshole who posted a link to a newspaper article the he wrote and was published with his name in it.
"People know who I am"
"STOP THEM FROM FINDING OUT ABOUT ME!!!"
says that asshole who posted a link to a newspaper article the he wrote and was published with his name in it.
"People know who I am"
"STOP THEM FROM FINDING OUT ABOUT ME!!!"
Actually, he just mentioned the article. By "mentioned", I mean "crowed". He didn't actually link to it.
says that asshole who posted a link to a newspaper article the he wrote and was published with his name in it.
"People know who I am"
"STOP THEM FROM FINDING OUT ABOUT ME!!!"
Actually, he just mentioned the article. By "mentioned", I mean "crowed". He didn't actually link to it.
Well then I recind that minor bit of derision towards him.
He is still a world class piece of shit.
says that asshole who posted a link to a newspaper article the he wrote and was published with his name in it.
"People know who I am"
"STOP THEM FROM FINDING OUT ABOUT ME!!!"
Actually, he just mentioned the article. By "mentioned", I mean "crowed". He didn't actually link to it.
QuoteYou unquestioningly accept what someone else says even though it is complete horseshit.
...said RWHN
:lulz:
says that asshole who posted a link to a newspaper article the he wrote and was published with his name in it.
"People know who I am"
"STOP THEM FROM FINDING OUT ABOUT ME!!!"
Actually, he just mentioned the article. By "mentioned", I mean "crowed". He didn't actually link to it.
I don't need to, you apparently have some cyberstalkers here who are more than happy to do the digging, even though you said you weren't ever going to allow that here.
says that asshole who posted a link to a newspaper article the he wrote and was published with his name in it.
"People know who I am"
"STOP THEM FROM FINDING OUT ABOUT ME!!!"
Actually, he just mentioned the article. By "mentioned", I mean "crowed". He didn't actually link to it.
I don't need to, you apparently have some cyberstalkers here who are more than happy to do the digging, even though you said you weren't ever going to allow that here.
says that asshole who posted a link to a newspaper article the he wrote and was published with his name in it.
"People know who I am"
"STOP THEM FROM FINDING OUT ABOUT ME!!!"
Actually, he just mentioned the article. By "mentioned", I mean "crowed". He didn't actually link to it.
I don't need to, you apparently have some cyberstalkers here who are more than happy to do the digging, even though you said you weren't ever going to allow that here.
And I gotta ask you at this point: You brag about a column, someone googles said column, this to you is cyberstalking?
Googling, and then linking, providing my PI without my permission.
"Haven't posted it yet" which implies he has gathered it.
You going to do something about this or not?
And I would like you to no longer post my real name.
The thing with your father never happened.
Also, I am the only person with that name that does what I do in this state. So it kinda does give it away to someone like Bear who has publicly admitted he is cyberstalking me.
Also, I am the only person with that name that does what I do in this state. So it kinda does give it away to someone like Bear who has publicly admitted he is cyberstalking me.
Just one look into your eyes, one touch and I'm ready to die. Because you're so beautiful.
Also, I am the only person with that name that does what I do in this state. So it kinda does give it away to someone like Bear who has publicly admitted he is cyberstalking me.
Just one look into your eyes, one touch and I'm ready to die. Because you're so beautiful.
You are a bad person. :lulz:
But you have the best avatar ever.
Also, I am the only person with that name that does what I do in this state. So it kinda does give it away to someone like Bear who has publicly admitted he is cyberstalking me.
Just one look into your eyes, one touch and I'm ready to die. Because you're so beautiful.
You are a bad person. :lulz:
But you have the best avatar ever.
It's your old friend John Paul ready for the revolution.
Also, I am the only person with that name that does what I do in this state. So it kinda does give it away to someone like Bear who has publicly admitted he is cyberstalking me.
Also, I am the only person with that name that does what I do in this state. So it kinda does give it away to someone like Bear who has publicly admitted he is cyberstalking me.
Just one look into your eyes, one touch and I'm ready to die. Because you're so beautiful.
You are a bad person. :lulz:
But you have the best avatar ever.
It's your old friend John Paul ready for the revolution.
For real? With those stupid fucking mini-Rambo weapons?
Amateurs. Jesus H Christ.
^ cyberstalker
Also, I am the only person with that name that does what I do in this state. So it kinda does give it away to someone like Bear who has publicly admitted he is cyberstalking me.
Just one look into your eyes, one touch and I'm ready to die. Because you're so beautiful.
You are a bad person. :lulz:
But you have the best avatar ever.
It's your old friend John Paul ready for the revolution.
For real? With those stupid fucking mini-Rambo weapons?
Amateurs. Jesus H Christ.
Dude looks like a washed up hobo.
The thing with your father is another example. There was a thread about putting personal information on the internet and I simply said a good rule of thumb is less = better. I had no idea that the thread was predicated on something that happened to your father and I cleared that up as soon as I figured it out.
Also, I am the only person with that name that does what I do in this state. So it kinda does give it away to someone like Bear who has publicly admitted he is cyberstalking me.
Just one look into your eyes, one touch and I'm ready to die. Because you're so beautiful.
Also, I am the only person with that name that does what I do in this state. So it kinda does give it away to someone like Bear who has publicly admitted he is cyberstalking me.
Just one look into your eyes, one touch and I'm ready to die. Because you're so beautiful.
He does make a valid point here, googling firstname drug prevention Maine brings him up as the first result. FWIW.
Being the pessimistic cynic I am when it comes to the internet, my guess is that the only true way to protect your information from stalkers on the internet is to not post it on the internet.
HEY...
Fuck off.
Not trying to be difficult, but the reality is, if someone REALLY wants to find stuff, and has even a reasonable amount of internet skills, they will find it. I could care less about what switches get turned on or off here, but if the goal is to keep a committed stalker (read: completely obsessive) at bay, it's not going to stop them.
All they have to do is make an account and lurk, or not act as an obvious jackass.
It's why I am VERY protective of information. There's a reason only two people on this site know my real name, it's why I don't post pics anymore, it's why I've not posted info about my education.
The fewer crumbs we leave the less likely someone we don't want finding us, will find us.
I didn't post my first name here jackass.
Being the pessimistic cynic I am when it comes to the internet, my guess is that the only true way to protect your information from stalkers on the internet is to not post it on the internet.
HEY...
Fuck off.
Not trying to be difficult, but the reality is, if someone REALLY wants to find stuff, and has even a reasonable amount of internet skills, they will find it. I could care less about what switches get turned on or off here, but if the goal is to keep a committed stalker (read: completely obsessive) at bay, it's not going to stop them.
All they have to do is make an account and lurk, or not act as an obvious jackass.
It's why I am VERY protective of information. There's a reason only two people on this site know my real name, it's why I don't post pics anymore, it's why I've not posted info about my education.
The fewer crumbs we leave the less likely someone we don't want finding us, will find us.
There was no mention of your father until about the third page, after I made my posts which were responding to the OP. It is as clear as day. And no matter what I have said or haven't said about myself on this website, at no point did I grant permission for people to post things which reveal my PI.
You have nothing to stand on.
Which was found using my first name which was discovered when someone linked my article, revealing PI, without my permission.
So you obviously condone maliciously providing my PI without my consent as long as it is within the letter of the law, yes?
Reread my post.
Let me try again, are you condoning the revealing of MY personal information without MY consent as long as it is within the letter of the law?
See, the difference between you and me is that I actually have some scruples.
Seriously, folks. What can be done here?
Do we want this to just keep going?
Seriously, folks. What can be done here?
Do we want this to just keep going?
I don't. I'll admit, I had no hope about peace with this man and this forum. Not since the day Twid earnestly tried to reach out and the fucker pissed all over him. He WANTS everybody to be against him because it fits his worldview.
We can't call out every asshole we don't like for not being a Discordian, right? Even a drug prevention and prohibitionist. Surely, the RWNH is a Discordian. I want to state that clearly. I'm not saying anyone ELSE is saying he's not, I'm just saying.
But not all Spags have their own happy place here at the PD.com
And that's a damn shame.
I think a large part of the struggle here comes from the fact that he was one of those spags. And many of us loved him for it. That special PD love that isn't full of slobber and tears. That deep respect that we can't properly explain to others, ourselves, or each other, right here.
So, nobody quite wants to give up all the way, and then when any of us do we get really nasty because it's such a blow. I mean, trolls are trolls. And holist is as holist does. But to have one of us go out like that...like this.
Maybe we're just worried, it could happen to any of us. I sure was mad when Charley blocked me on FB because I said Khara was not a very nice person, or because he blocked every one of Roger's Cronies or which he must of thought I was one (I keep sending in the applications, but all I get back is coyote poop).
Every now an again, because none of us really force anything on anyone, comes along of their own accord and figures out what this former tribe member is doing (hooting and hollering and shitting in the fucking sweat lodge, and acting a fool) and tries, and figures out that's all an act. Except for the shitting, the shitting is very real.
And they get super mad. Which often make me more made for some reason.
Anyway, I had a point. Oh yeah, that ignore function works killer. It's all SSDD anyway.
Please forgive me egregious use of general "you" and "we". I recognize there's a lot of stuff going on and many opinions and reactions...
...
...
UNLIKE SOME OTHER PEOPLE I COULD MENTION.
Maybe we're just worried, it could happen to any of us. I sure was mad when Charley blocked me on FB because I said Khara was not a very nice person, or because he blocked every one of Roger's Cronies or which he must of thought I was one (I keep sending in the applications, but all I get back is coyote poop).
See, the difference between you and me is that I actually have some scruples.
:spittake:
Seriously, folks. What can be done here?
Do we want this to just keep going?
All I want is for the jackass to make his big reveal. Because then shit stops being BORING and becomes my kind of INTERESTING.
So yes. Yes. At the moment, I really DO want things to not just CONTINUE, but ratchet up a notch.
I am having trouble articulating just how much I want this.
Seriously, folks. What can be done here?
Do we want this to just keep going?
All I want is for the jackass to make his big reveal. Because then shit stops being BORING and becomes my kind of INTERESTING.
So yes. Yes. At the moment, I really DO want things to not just CONTINUE, but ratchet up a notch.
I am having trouble articulating just how much I want this.
I can certainly respect that.
Seriously, folks. What can be done here?
Do we want this to just keep going?
All I want is for the jackass to make his big reveal. Because then shit stops being BORING and becomes my kind of INTERESTING.
So yes. Yes. At the moment, I really DO want things to not just CONTINUE, but ratchet up a notch.
I am having trouble articulating just how much I want this.
I can certainly respect that.
As can I.
I've loathed the creep since he defended arresting little kids.
Seriously, folks. What can be done here?
Do we want this to just keep going?
All I want is for the jackass to make his big reveal. Because then shit stops being BORING and becomes my kind of INTERESTING.
So yes. Yes. At the moment, I really DO want things to not just CONTINUE, but ratchet up a notch.
I am having trouble articulating just how much I want this.
I can certainly respect that.
Seriously, folks. What can be done here?
Do we want this to just keep going?
I don't. I'll admit, I had no hope about peace with this man and this forum. Not since the day Twid earnestly tried to reach out and the fucker pissed all over him. He WANTS everybody to be against him because it fits his worldview.
We can't call out every asshole we don't like for not being a Discordian, right? Even a drug prevention and prohibitionist. Surely, the RWNH is a Discordian. I want to state that clearly. I'm not saying anyone ELSE is saying he's not, I'm just saying.
But not all Spags have their own happy place here at the PD.com
And that's a damn shame.
I think a large part of the struggle here comes from the fact that he was one of those spags. And many of us loved him for it. That special PD love that isn't full of slobber and tears. That deep respect that we can't properly explain to others, ourselves, or each other, right here.
So, nobody quite wants to give up all the way, and then when any of us do we get really nasty because it's such a blow. I mean, trolls are trolls. And holist is as holist does. But to have one of us go out like that...like this.
Maybe we're just worried, it could happen to any of us. I sure was mad when Charley blocked me on FB because I said Khara was not a very nice person, or because he blocked every one of Roger's Cronies or which he must of thought I was one (I keep sending in the applications, but all I get back is coyote poop).
Every now an again, because none of us really force anything on anyone, comes along of their own accord and figures out what this former tribe member is doing (hooting and hollering and shitting in the fucking sweat lodge, and acting a fool) and tries, and figures out that's all an act. Except for the shitting, the shitting is very real.
And they get super mad. Which often make me more made for some reason.
Anyway, I had a point. Oh yeah, that ignore function works killer. It's all SSDD anyway.
Please forgive me egregious use of general "you" and "we". I recognize there's a lot of stuff going on and many opinions and reactions...
...
...
UNLIKE SOME OTHER PEOPLE I COULD MENTION.
"nope"
Seriously, folks. What can be done here?
Do we want this to just keep going?
All I want is for the jackass to make his big reveal. Because then shit stops being BORING and becomes my kind of INTERESTING.
So yes. Yes. At the moment, I really DO want things to not just CONTINUE, but ratchet up a notch.
I am having trouble articulating just how much I want this.
I can certainly respect that.
Seriously, folks. What can be done here?
Do we want this to just keep going?
All I want is for the jackass to make his big reveal. Because then shit stops being BORING and becomes my kind of INTERESTING.
So yes. Yes. At the moment, I really DO want things to not just CONTINUE, but ratchet up a notch.
I am having trouble articulating just how much I want this.
I can certainly respect that.
There is no big reveal. RWHN doesn't play dirty.
Maybe we're just worried, it could happen to any of us. I sure was mad when Charley blocked me on FB because I said Khara was not a very nice person, or because he blocked every one of Roger's Cronies or which he must of thought I was one (I keep sending in the applications, but all I get back is coyote poop).
Um, that poop was your first PAYCHECK. Then you never show up for work.
Seriously, folks. What can be done here?
Do we want this to just keep going?
All I want is for the jackass to make his big reveal. Because then shit stops being BORING and becomes my kind of INTERESTING.
So yes. Yes. At the moment, I really DO want things to not just CONTINUE, but ratchet up a notch.
I am having trouble articulating just how much I want this.
I can certainly respect that.
There is no big reveal. RWHN doesn't play dirty.
A whole lot of nothing in that hand, eh?
Pity. I was HOPING things would get interesting. But you're just a spineless sadsack.
Which means you really aren't worth any attention at all.
Worm.
Seriously, folks. What can be done here?
Do we want this to just keep going?
All I want is for the jackass to make his big reveal. Because then shit stops being BORING and becomes my kind of INTERESTING.
So yes. Yes. At the moment, I really DO want things to not just CONTINUE, but ratchet up a notch.
I am having trouble articulating just how much I want this.
I can certainly respect that.
As can I.
I've loathed the creep since he defended arresting little kids.
This also never happened.
Seriously, folks. What can be done here?
Do we want this to just keep going?
All I want is for the jackass to make his big reveal. Because then shit stops being BORING and becomes my kind of INTERESTING.
So yes. Yes. At the moment, I really DO want things to not just CONTINUE, but ratchet up a notch.
I am having trouble articulating just how much I want this.
I can certainly respect that.
There is no big reveal. RWHN doesn't play dirty.
A whole lot of nothing in that hand, eh?
Pity. I was HOPING things would get interesting. But you're just a spineless sadsack.
Which means you really aren't worth any attention at all.
Worm.
Seriously, folks. What can be done here?
Do we want this to just keep going?
I don't. I'll admit, I had no hope about peace with this man and this forum. Not since the day Twid earnestly tried to reach out and the fucker pissed all over him. He WANTS everybody to be against him because it fits his worldview.
We can't call out every asshole we don't like for not being a Discordian, right? Even a drug prevention and prohibitionist. Surely, the RWNH is a Discordian. I want to state that clearly. I'm not saying anyone ELSE is saying he's not, I'm just saying.
But not all Spags have their own happy place here at the PD.com
And that's a damn shame.
I think a large part of the struggle here comes from the fact that he was one of those spags. And many of us loved him for it. That special PD love that isn't full of slobber and tears. That deep respect that we can't properly explain to others, ourselves, or each other, right here.
So, nobody quite wants to give up all the way, and then when any of us do we get really nasty because it's such a blow. I mean, trolls are trolls. And holist is as holist does. But to have one of us go out like that...like this.
Maybe we're just worried, it could happen to any of us. I sure was mad when Charley blocked me on FB because I said Khara was not a very nice person, or because he blocked every one of Roger's Cronies or which he must of thought I was one (I keep sending in the applications, but all I get back is coyote poop).
Every now an again, because none of us really force anything on anyone, comes along of their own accord and figures out what this former tribe member is doing (hooting and hollering and shitting in the fucking sweat lodge, and acting a fool) and tries, and figures out that's all an act. Except for the shitting, the shitting is very real.
And they get super mad. Which often make me more made for some reason.
Anyway, I had a point. Oh yeah, that ignore function works killer. It's all SSDD anyway.
Please forgive me egregious use of general "you" and "we". I recognize there's a lot of stuff going on and many opinions and reactions...
...
...
UNLIKE SOME OTHER PEOPLE I COULD MENTION.
Figured the gutless wonder would scurry past that.
:lulz:
BOY, I BET HE WAS THE CRAZY ONE IN HIGH SCHOOL.
I'm a worm because I won't be a jackass and reveal someone's PI?
It could've stopped long ago if people could have had the ability to disagree with someone without being disagreeable.
Figured the gutless wonder would scurry past that.
:lulz:
BOY, I BET HE WAS THE CRAZY ONE IN HIGH SCHOOL.
He did listen to Nirvana.
"Haven't posted it yet" which implies he has gathered it.
You going to do something about this or not?
So you obviously condone maliciously providing my PI without my consent as long as it is within the letter of the law, yes?
I've known people with no redeeming qualities whatsoever and SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE always seemed to like them.
RWHN is the exception. :lol:
So you obviously condone maliciously providing my PI without my consent as long as it is within the letter of the law, yes?
I'm gonna go with "Yes. Absolutely the fuck yes."
But, y'know, only because I hate you. :D
He does make a valid point here, googling firstname drug prevention Maine brings him up as the first result. FWIW.
So you obviously condone maliciously providing my PI without my consent as long as it is within the letter of the law, yes?
I'm gonna go with "Yes. Absolutely the fuck yes."
But, y'know, only because I hate you. :D
Now some bears might take that as some kind of permission. If this shit wasn't easily searchable anyway making the matter moot by now. Anyone who really wants you PI already has it GONE.
Suggestion - Henceforth refer to RWHN as GONE until he deals with the butthurt of his name being used (And therefore, possibly (ha) a wide range of other butthurt) or flounces.
Seriously, this thread is 32 pages. This is a ridiculous flounce. It's gone on for about a year over a dozen threads. Drop the martyr act, display testicular fortitude and grow the fuck up.
So you obviously condone maliciously providing my PI without my consent as long as it is within the letter of the law, yes?
I'm gonna go with "Yes. Absolutely the fuck yes."
But, y'know, only because I hate you. :D
Now some bears might take that as some kind of permission. If this shit wasn't easily searchable anyway making the matter moot by now. Anyone who really wants you PI already has it.
Suggestion - Henceforth refer to RWHN as GONE until he deals with the butthurt of his name being used (And therefore, possibly (ha) a wide range of other butthurt) or flounces.
Seriously, this thread is 32 pages. This is a ridiculous flounce. It's gone on for about a year over a dozen threads. Drop the martyr act, display testicular fortitude and grow the fuck up.
I kind of prefer "Scooter". Reminds me of a puppy.
So you obviously condone maliciously providing my PI without my consent as long as it is within the letter of the law, yes?
I'm gonna go with "Yes. Absolutely the fuck yes."
But, y'know, only because I hate you. :D
Now some bears might take that as some kind of permission. If this shit wasn't easily searchable anyway making the matter moot by now. Anyone who really wants you PI already has it.
Suggestion - Henceforth refer to RWHN as GONE until he deals with the butthurt of his name being used (And therefore, possibly (ha) a wide range of other butthurt) or flounces.
Seriously, this thread is 32 pages. This is a ridiculous flounce. It's gone on for about a year over a dozen threads. Drop the martyr act, display testicular fortitude and grow the fuck up.
I kind of prefer "Scooter". Reminds me of a puppy.
Or a muppet, IIRC. I have changed my mind. Scooter it is.
So you obviously condone maliciously providing my PI without my consent as long as it is within the letter of the law, yes?
I'm gonna go with "Yes. Absolutely the fuck yes."
But, y'know, only because I hate you. :D
Now some bears might take that as some kind of permission. If this shit wasn't easily searchable anyway making the matter moot by now. Anyone who really wants you PI already has it.
Suggestion - Henceforth refer to RWHN as GONE until he deals with the butthurt of his name being used (And therefore, possibly (ha) a wide range of other butthurt) or flounces.
Seriously, this thread is 32 pages. This is a ridiculous flounce. It's gone on for about a year over a dozen threads. Drop the martyr act, display testicular fortitude and grow the fuck up.
I kind of prefer "Scooter". Reminds me of a puppy.
Or a muppet, IIRC. I have changed my mind. Scooter it is.
Scooting his ass across the board like a dog on a carpet.
On second thought, I'm okay with him being erased. That way I don't have to be reminded of my gullibility. Reverend who? I've already forgotten. Not like he was anything substantive anyway. This was all a great big game of pretend life.
The community got exactly what it wanted. After it decided that I was a villain because of my views and opinions, I became a villain. Go back and look at those drug threads, look at how everyone froths at the mouth to get personal digs in, dragging in some very personal aspects of my personnel life. And tell me this isn't what they wanted, including the people you look up to.
I never did this once. I went into those threads with avoiding that specifically in mind (actually part of my meditation training at the time), and only tried to bring up things I could link to sources. I always argued from a position of respect, as you do influence your community, and any genuine, new information I could shoot your way would only benefit said community.
When you started spinning in circles, and ignoring corrections-made-by-the-authors-of-studies-you-had-cited-from-DEA-websites, and refused to pay attention to anyone who said "[citation needed]", well then the sarcasm-laced-knives came out and I SHUT THE HELL UP AND MOVED TO THE BACK.
I seriously disagreed with some of the things that were said, but I ain't nobody's internet white knight and you dug that hole yourself.
In short: You and your over-generalizations can Fuck Off.
For the first time ever in a Gallup poll, a clear majority of the country – 58 percent – say that pot should be legalized. That figure represents an increase of 10 percentage points since last year, according to Gallup. The poll surveyed 1,028 Americans by phone Oct. 3-6.
Those in favor of legalization skew young and liberal, though the biggest increase of support came among people identified as independents. Sixty-two percent of independents favored legalization in 2013, up 12 percentage points from last year, according to the poll. Sixty-five percent of Democrats favored legalization, vs. just 35 percent of Republicans.
The poll broke Americans down into five general age groups: 18 to 29, 30 to 49, 50 to 64, and 65 or older. The only age group not in favor of legalization was those 65 years or older – 53 percent of those polled still opposed legalization.
“Americans are increasingly recognizing that marijuana is less harmful than they’ve been led to believe,” said Mason Tvert, a spokesperson for Marijuana Policy Project. “I think it’s time to regulate marijuana like alcohol and most Americans appear to agree. We’re seeing support for ending prohibition in states across the country and efforts are being made to change state laws.”
Twenty states, plus the District of Columbia, permit marijuana for medical use. Washington state and Colorado have passed legislation permitting use of the drug recreationally. Marijuana is still considered an illegal drug by the federal government and is categorized as a hallucinogen by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Gallup first started tracking the question of legalization in 1969, when just 12 percent of the country favored legal use of marijuana. That figure doubled in the 1970s, reaching 28 percent. Support rose steadily and reached 50 percent in 2011, according to Gallup research. A Gallup poll released in early August said that 38 percent of Americans have tried marijuana.
Still, there is opposition.
“I’m concerned that these people that are saying that they are favoring legalization are really not aware or knowledgeable about the marijuana that’s out there today,” said Carla Lowe, the founder of Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana.
A poll conducted by Pew Research, released in April, said that 52 percent of the country favored legalization.
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute (even though Scooter is pushing total bullshit, as always) let's suppose that contemporary weed is s00peR d00p3R POTENT compared to 1980's weed.
So fucking what? It's WEED, not China White. FFS.
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute (even though Scooter is pushing stuff I can't begin to understand) let's suppose that contemporary weed is s00peR d00p3R POTENT compared to 1980's weed.
So fucking what? It's WEED, not China White. FFS.
I am a muppet.
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute (even though Scooter is pushing total bullshit, as always) let's suppose that contemporary weed is s00peR d00p3R POTENT compared to 1980's weed.
So fucking what? It's WEED, not China White. FFS.
In the final analysis, it doesn't matter. What matters is that RWHN is on the wrong side of history, and I'm going to enjoy watching his efforts fail.
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute (even though Scooter is pushing total bullshit, as always) let's suppose that contemporary weed is s00peR d00p3R POTENT compared to 1980's weed.
So fucking what? It's WEED, not China White. FFS.
In the final analysis, it doesn't matter. What matters is that RWHN is on the wrong side of history, and I'm going to enjoy watching his efforts fail.
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute (even though Scooter is pushing total bullshit, as always) let's suppose that contemporary weed is s00peR d00p3R POTENT compared to 1980's weed.
So fucking what? It's WEED, not China White. FFS.
In the final analysis, it doesn't matter. What matters is that RWHN is on the wrong side of history, and I'm going to enjoy watching his efforts fail.
He's like that one guy staunchly holding the line against suffrage.
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute (even though Scooter is pushing total bullshit, as always) let's suppose that contemporary weed is s00peR d00p3R POTENT compared to 1980's weed.
So fucking what? It's WEED, not China White. FFS.
In the final analysis, it doesn't matter. What matters is that RWHN is on the wrong side of history, and I'm going to enjoy watching his efforts fail.
Oh, I know it is coming.
You are being completely fooled but you are too stupid and blind to recognize it.
Way to go America!
Pretty sure Rush favors legalization.
There's no way that 40-somethings who grew up around weed and have friends and colleagues who smoke or eat weed and have seen firsthand over decades how not-especially-destructive it is, especially compared to alcohol, could possibly have formed accurate impressions based on their own observations. No, we've all been FOOLED by Big Marijuana!
There's no way that 40-somethings who grew up around weed and have friends and colleagues who smoke or eat weed and have seen firsthand over decades how not-especially-destructive it is, especially compared to alcohol, could possibly have formed accurate impressions based on their own observations. No, we've all been FOOLED by Big Marijuana!
As it turns out, most of my colleagues are 40-somethings, so in that respect you are correct, they/we haven't been fooled.
You and DOUR on the other hand, completely and utterly clueless, as you have demonstrated time and time again.
After it's legalized it will all be DOOOOOM and civilization falling apart and kids will turn into weed addicts in DROVES and there will be no societal benefits.
Of course we all know how much Big Marijuana wants pot legalized! http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/big-marijuana-lobby-fights-legalization-efforts-94816.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/big-marijuana-lobby-fights-legalization-efforts-94816.html)
Here is some reading material regarding the new MMJ law in Massachusetts which may help shed some light.
Really? A piss test determines if you're CURRENTLY high?
Because if not, that's like saying if you drank a beer in the weekend or after work, you should be fired for drinking on the job.
Here is some reading material regarding the new MMJ law in Massachusetts which may help shed some light.
I'm sure this is an accident, but :lulz:
Really? A piss test determines if you're CURRENTLY high?
Because if not, that's like saying if you drank a beer in the weekend or after work, you should be fired for drinking on the job.
Here is some reading material regarding the new MMJ law in Massachusetts which may help shed some light.
I'm sure this is an accident, but :lulz:
Yes it was, http://newenglandinhouse.com/2013/07/02/what-medical-marijuana-act-means-for-employers/
Here is some reading material regarding the new MMJ law in Massachusetts which may help shed some light.
I'm sure this is an accident, but :lulz:
Yes it was, http://newenglandinhouse.com/2013/07/02/what-medical-marijuana-act-means-for-employers/ (http://newenglandinhouse.com/2013/07/02/what-medical-marijuana-act-means-for-employers/)
Applies to Medical MJ. Which currently puts it in the same realm legally as prescription pills. I believe we're talking about generalized legality, which allows recreational use without a prescription. Which means you didn't answer the question. Of course.
Th
Here is some reading material regarding the new MMJ law in Massachusetts which may help shed some light.
I'm sure this is an accident, but :lulz:
Yes it was, http://newenglandinhouse.com/2013/07/02/what-medical-marijuana-act-means-for-employers/ (http://newenglandinhouse.com/2013/07/02/what-medical-marijuana-act-means-for-employers/)
Applies to Medical MJ. Which currently puts it in the same realm legally as prescription pills. I believe we're talking about generalized legality, which allows recreational use without a prescription. Which means you didn't answer the question. Of course.
Th
Does legalization turn marijuana into a non-impairing substance?
I was talking with my Aunt about testing for pot, and we came to the conclusion that some kind of test for impairment but not "do you ever use it" would be the best possible solution. Nobody wants city bus drivers high on the job (even if it would be marginally safer than being drunk).
Here is some reading material regarding the new MMJ law in Massachusetts which may help shed some light.
I'm sure this is an accident, but :lulz:
Yes it was, http://newenglandinhouse.com/2013/07/02/what-medical-marijuana-act-means-for-employers/ (http://newenglandinhouse.com/2013/07/02/what-medical-marijuana-act-means-for-employers/)
Applies to Medical MJ. Which currently puts it in the same realm legally as prescription pills. I believe we're talking about generalized legality, which allows recreational use without a prescription. Which means you didn't answer the question. Of course.
Th
Does legalization turn marijuana into a non-impairing substance?
Again, the piss test reveals if you HAVE USED, not if you ARE impaired.
So.
I was talking with my Aunt about testing for pot, and we came to the conclusion that some kind of test for impairment but not "do you ever use it" would be the best possible solution. Nobody wants city bus drivers high on the job (even if it would be marginally safer than being drunk).
I was talking with my Aunt about testing for pot, and we came to the conclusion that some kind of test for impairment but not "do you ever use it" would be the best possible solution. Nobody wants city bus drivers high on the job (even if it would be marginally safer than being drunk).
No such test exists. So we have to go with the technology that currently exists. You can't test for marijuana like you can alcohol. There is no ".08" for marijuana. It's a lot more complicated, which means employers, naturally, are going to ere on the side of caution. And can you blame them? Lawsuits are expensive,
I was talking with my Aunt about testing for pot, and we came to the conclusion that some kind of test for impairment but not "do you ever use it" would be the best possible solution. Nobody wants city bus drivers high on the job (even if it would be marginally safer than being drunk).
No such test exists. So we have to go with the technology that currently exists. You can't test for marijuana like you can alcohol. There is no ".08" for marijuana. It's a lot more complicated, which means employers, naturally, are going to ere on the side of caution. And can you blame them? Lawsuits are expensive,
I am aware that it doesn't yet exist, but it seems like a thing worth pursuing. Even if it's just a field sobriety test type thing that employers can be trained in and used to turn away people who are impaired by anything when they show up to work. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but nobody gives bus drivers a breathalizer before they start their shift.
I was talking with my Aunt about testing for pot, and we came to the conclusion that some kind of test for impairment but not "do you ever use it" would be the best possible solution. Nobody wants city bus drivers high on the job (even if it would be marginally safer than being drunk).
No such test exists. So we have to go with the technology that currently exists. You can't test for marijuana like you can alcohol. There is no ".08" for marijuana. It's a lot more complicated, which means employers, naturally, are going to ere on the side of caution. And can you blame them? Lawsuits are expensive,
I am aware that it doesn't yet exist, but it seems like a thing worth pursuing. Even if it's just a field sobriety test type thing that employers can be trained in and used to turn away people who are impaired by anything when they show up to work. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but nobody gives bus drivers a breathalizer before they start their shift.
The Functional Task Test doesn't exist? :?
Granted, it isn't a chemical test, it's a performance test, but if it's good enough for NASA...
So, the employee will sue because there is no proof of impairment.
The link you posted said nothing about implied use at work, it was about whether there was use without a prescription.
However, if you have something similar from Colorado, I'd be interested in that, specifically in relation to recreational use.
I just dropped in to gloat a little.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/22/21081289-clear-majority-favors-legal-marijuana-new-gallup-poll-shows?lite (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/22/21081289-clear-majority-favors-legal-marijuana-new-gallup-poll-shows?lite)QuoteFor the first time ever in a Gallup poll, a clear majority of the country – 58 percent – say that pot should be legalized. That figure represents an increase of 10 percentage points since last year, according to Gallup. The poll surveyed 1,028 Americans by phone Oct. 3-6.
Those in favor of legalization skew young and liberal, though the biggest increase of support came among people identified as independents. Sixty-two percent of independents favored legalization in 2013, up 12 percentage points from last year, according to the poll. Sixty-five percent of Democrats favored legalization, vs. just 35 percent of Republicans.
The poll broke Americans down into five general age groups: 18 to 29, 30 to 49, 50 to 64, and 65 or older. The only age group not in favor of legalization was those 65 years or older – 53 percent of those polled still opposed legalization.
“Americans are increasingly recognizing that marijuana is less harmful than they’ve been led to believe,” said Mason Tvert, a spokesperson for Marijuana Policy Project. “I think it’s time to regulate marijuana like alcohol and most Americans appear to agree. We’re seeing support for ending prohibition in states across the country and efforts are being made to change state laws.”
Twenty states, plus the District of Columbia, permit marijuana for medical use. Washington state and Colorado have passed legislation permitting use of the drug recreationally. Marijuana is still considered an illegal drug by the federal government and is categorized as a hallucinogen by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Gallup first started tracking the question of legalization in 1969, when just 12 percent of the country favored legal use of marijuana. That figure doubled in the 1970s, reaching 28 percent. Support rose steadily and reached 50 percent in 2011, according to Gallup research. A Gallup poll released in early August said that 38 percent of Americans have tried marijuana.
Still, there is opposition.
“I’m concerned that these people that are saying that they are favoring legalization are really not aware or knowledgeable about the marijuana that’s out there today,” said Carla Lowe, the founder of Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana.
A poll conducted by Pew Research, released in April, said that 52 percent of the country favored legalization.
Carla Lowe, of course, is hilarious. She's the darling of the Heritage Foundation and Take Back America.
Which is the only place the prohibitionists have any remaining support to speak of.
So good luck "marshalling voices for the big fight", RWHN. It will be interesting to see who your "allies and bedfellows" are, this time next year.
I was talking with my Aunt about testing for pot, and we came to the conclusion that some kind of test for impairment but not "do you ever use it" would be the best possible solution. Nobody wants city bus drivers high on the job (even if it would be marginally safer than being drunk).
No such test exists. So we have to go with the technology that currently exists. You can't test for marijuana like you can alcohol. There is no ".08" for marijuana. It's a lot more complicated, which means employers, naturally, are going to ere on the side of caution. And can you blame them? Lawsuits are expensive,
So, the employee will sue because there is no proof of impairment.
The link you posted said nothing about implied use at work, it was about whether there was use without a prescription.
However, if you have something similar from Colorado, I'd be interested in that, specifically in relation to recreational use.
What you aren't recognizing is that impairment can and does continue after use, thus the need for the testing in the first place. You seem to be suggesting it should be okay to use marijuana right before coming to work, so long as they don't actually use it AT work. If they are impaired they are impaired, and thus making their workplace less safe and prone to risk. Employers are risk averse.
Marijuana is an impairing substance whether or not it is legal, which is why, it will still be subject to testing when it is legal, and rightly so.
So, the employee will sue because there is no proof of impairment.
The link you posted said nothing about implied use at work, it was about whether there was use without a prescription.
However, if you have something similar from Colorado, I'd be interested in that, specifically in relation to recreational use.
What you aren't recognizing is that impairment can and does continue after use, thus the need for the testing in the first place. You seem to be suggesting it should be okay to use marijuana right before coming to work, so long as they don't actually use it AT work. If they are impaired they are impaired, and thus making their workplace less safe and prone to risk. Employers are risk averse.
Marijuana is an impairing substance whether or not it is legal, which is why, it will still be subject to testing when it is legal, and rightly so.
I was talking with my Aunt about testing for pot, and we came to the conclusion that some kind of test for impairment but not "do you ever use it" would be the best possible solution. Nobody wants city bus drivers high on the job (even if it would be marginally safer than being drunk).
No such test exists. So we have to go with the technology that currently exists. You can't test for marijuana like you can alcohol. There is no ".08" for marijuana. It's a lot more complicated, which means employers, naturally, are going to ere on the side of caution. And can you blame them? Lawsuits are expensive,
Whoops, wrong again Scooter!
OR maybe we're just smarter out here in WA than your buddies in Maine are, but we have a test that detects active THC as opposed to THC metabolites. It tells whether someone is currently impaired or not, not whether or not they've smoked in the last couple weeks.
And they even have a limit established for DUI. Amazing.
So, the employee will sue because there is no proof of impairment.
The link you posted said nothing about implied use at work, it was about whether there was use without a prescription.
However, if you have something similar from Colorado, I'd be interested in that, specifically in relation to recreational use.
What you aren't recognizing is that impairment can and does continue after use, thus the need for the testing in the first place. You seem to be suggesting it should be okay to use marijuana right before coming to work, so long as they don't actually use it AT work. If they are impaired they are impaired, and thus making their workplace less safe and prone to risk. Employers are risk averse.
Marijuana is an impairing substance whether or not it is legal, which is why, it will still be subject to testing when it is legal, and rightly so.
Your logic is... well, not. TCH levels can be found up to ten days after smoking. That is what a pot test will detect.
Smoking before going to work would be the same as doing shots of vodka before going to work. Both of which would make one imparied. But that's not what the test is doing. It's testing if you have TCH in your system, not if you're high.
If I take a shot on Friday, and smoke a joint on Saturday, and do nothing else all weekend, hopefully you'll say I was not impaired on Monday. And a drug test on Monday would show I have no alcohol in my pee, but I do have TCH.
But you're saying that I should be fired, even though I am not impaired at work, and yet my drug test is positive.
Again, what are the business rules in Colorado for recreational use? I'd be interested to find out.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0425/Colorado-court-rules-marijuana-smokers-may-be-fired
Dumbass, that isn't going to go away when it is legal. You think your employer is going to want to have a bunch of stoned goons running heavy equipment? Are you allowed to show up to work drunk?
C'mon, use your brain.
Do you agree that RWHN is pathologically incapable of acknowledging posts that show him to be factually wrong?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0425/Colorado-court-rules-marijuana-smokers-may-be-fired (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0425/Colorado-court-rules-marijuana-smokers-may-be-fired)
:sigh:
That's about federal law. Where, you know, it's still illegal.
"For an activity to be lawful in Colorado, it must be permitted by, and not contrary to, both state and federal law," the appeals court stated in its 2-1 conclusion.
So, to recap, a Colorado court ruled it is okay for Colorado employers to fire employees who test positive for marijuana.
What more are you looking for?
So, the employee will sue because there is no proof of impairment.
The link you posted said nothing about implied use at work, it was about whether there was use without a prescription.
However, if you have something similar from Colorado, I'd be interested in that, specifically in relation to recreational use.
What you aren't recognizing is that impairment can and does continue after use, thus the need for the testing in the first place. You seem to be suggesting it should be okay to use marijuana right before coming to work, so long as they don't actually use it AT work. If they are impaired they are impaired, and thus making their workplace less safe and prone to risk. Employers are risk averse.
Marijuana is an impairing substance whether or not it is legal, which is why, it will still be subject to testing when it is legal, and rightly so.
Jesus tittyfucking Christ, Scooter.
Would you PLEASE go back to 8th grade english class and learn how to construct a fucking paragraph? It's hard enough translating your idiotic babble into something resembling an actual thought without you making it that much harder by refusing to understand things like grammar and punctuation.
Thanks in advance.
So, to recap, a Colorado court ruled it is okay for Colorado employers to fire employees who test positive for marijuana.
What more are you looking for?
Either random screening for alcohol use, or the total repeal of marijuana prohibition. I'd prefer the latter.
And I think I'll get it, sooner than I used to think.
Dumbass, that isn't going to go away when it is legal. You think your employer is going to want to have a bunch of stoned goons running heavy equipment? Are you allowed to show up to work drunk?
C'mon, use your brain.
So, to recap, a Colorado court ruled it is okay for Colorado employers to fire employees who test positive for marijuana.
What more are you looking for?
Either random screening for alcohol use, or the total repeal of marijuana prohibition. I'd prefer the latter.
And I think I'll get it, sooner than I used to think.
UNNNNGGGGG! Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test. This is pretty straightforward.
UNNNNGGGGG! Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test. This is pretty straightforward.
Sure, do tests for alcohol, I'm fine with that.
Yes, you are right, it is still illegal federally. You do realize that is still in the mix, correct? You can't just pretend that doesn't exist.
I think some wrong lessons were learned in the last century, and I'm not sure how they got learned. Take the two biggest social change movements that happened in the 20th Century (in America) -- Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights. These two movements started as all great movements start out -- from the bottom up, with more and more people becoming sick and goddamn tired of the way things are, and deciding to live in a world where things aren't that way.
Somehow, when the history books were written (or taught, or both), people got the idea that the hard-fought equality (or progress toward equality, anyway) that was won in those movements was somehow a product of things like the 19th Amendment or the Civil Rights Act. And while yes, those pieces of legislation were -- and are -- crucial to the eventual and continued success of these movements, they are not the springs from which equality flows. They never would have happened if people weren't out there, being all free and shit, without permission.
But now we have this idea that the quickest way from Here to There is via the government and convincing lawmakers to send down enlightenment from Mount Olympus or wherever the fuck we seem to think those overblown lawyers live. But just as you can't legislate morality, you can't legislate liberty, either. You can't pass a law that says "Shit is hereby fixed." That isn't where liberty comes from.
It sounds quaint, and for some reason it seems counter-intuitive, but government follows a popular charge for social progress. Government does not lead those charges. You will never, ever find a government anywhere -- no matter how advanced or progressive you think it is -- that will ever be very good at paving the road to equality so the masses can have a smooth ride all the way to Utopia. Like any road, it gets built first by a ton of people walking that way before there's a fucking road there, breaking their legs, stubbing their toes, and spraining their ankles along the way until finally somebody notices that "hey! Everybody's going this way, let's put a grader on that shit and lay down some pavement."
Dumbass, that isn't going to go away when it is legal. You think your employer is going to want to have a bunch of stoned goons running heavy equipment? Are you allowed to show up to work drunk?
C'mon, use your brain.
Statement implies MJ is legal at all levels: local, state, fedeeral.
All responses from LMNO based on that premise.
All subsequest responses from RWHN back away from that premise.
Dumbass, that isn't going to go away when it is legal. You think your employer is going to want to have a bunch of stoned goons running heavy equipment? Are you allowed to show up to work drunk?
C'mon, use your brain.
Statement implies MJ is legal at all levels: local, state, fedeeral.
All responses from LMNO based on that premise.
All subsequest responses from RWHN back away from that premise.
MARIJUANA IS AN IMPAIRING SUBSTANCE REGARDLESS OF LEGAL STATUS.
Workplace safety doesn't give a fuck about legal status, it gives a fuck about someone impaired running over someone with a forklift.
C'mon!
UNNNNGGGGG! Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test. This is pretty straightforward.
Positive MJ test is not proof of impairment.
Averse to wrongful termination lawsuits, for certain.
Averse to wrongful termination lawsuits, for certain.
How about workplace accidents?
RHWN: What about X?
LMNO: Refutes X.
RWHN: What about Y?
LMNO: Refutes Y.
RHWN: Well, what about X?
LMNO: Refutes X.
RWHN: Well, what about Y?
LMNO: Refutes Y.
RHWN: Well, what about X?
LMNO: Refutes X.
RWHN: Well, what about Y?
LMNO: Stops responding.
RWHN: I guess I win.
THERE ARE NO LINGERING EFFECTS FROM ALCOHOL.
First,THERE ARE NO LINGERING EFFECTS FROM ALCOHOL.
Second, your question was an avoidance of mine, and while maybe pertinent to the larger conversation, is a deliberate avoidance of our particular angle.
Y'dingus.
First,THERE ARE NO LINGERING EFFECTS FROM ALCOHOL.
See reply #540
UNNNNGGGGG! Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test. This is pretty straightforward.
Positive MJ test is not proof of impairment.
Are employers risk averse?
UNNNNGGGGG! Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test. This is pretty straightforward.
Positive MJ test is not proof of impairment.
Are employers risk averse?
Maybe a few. If they all were, there would be no need for OSHA.
First,THERE ARE NO LINGERING EFFECTS FROM ALCOHOL.
See reply #540
Great. So you agree that if any evidence of alcohol use is found by any test, for any length of time preceding the test that can be established, the employer may terminate the employee for that alone?
UNNNNGGGGG! Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test. This is pretty straightforward.
Positive MJ test is not proof of impairment.
Are employers risk averse?
Maybe a few. If they all were, there would be no need for OSHA.
:mittens::potd::mittens:
UNNNNGGGGG! Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test. This is pretty straightforward.
Positive MJ test is not proof of impairment.
Are employers risk averse?
Maybe a few. If they all were, there would be no need for OSHA.
First,THERE ARE NO LINGERING EFFECTS FROM ALCOHOL.
See reply #540
Great. So you agree that if any evidence of alcohol use is found by any test, for any length of time preceding the test that can be established, the employer may terminate the employee for that alone?
DRINK ON FRIDAY NIGHT, GET FIRED ON MONDAY MORNING! UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS ARE IN THE BAG, WAHOO!
It wouldn't happen that way in the real world. In the real world, it would be a positive test along with behavior that deems the employee unfit for duty.
You've been ignoring from the start the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, with regards to workplace safety (aka people not being impaired and turning people into jelly with heavy machinery) and the legal status is a moot point. I've tried like 3 different ways to get you to acknowledge it but you refuse to even address the point.
UNNNNGGGGG! Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test. This is pretty straightforward.
Positive MJ test is not proof of impairment.
Are employers risk averse?
Maybe a few. If they all were, there would be no need for OSHA.
UNNNNGGGGG! Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test. This is pretty straightforward.
Positive MJ test is not proof of impairment.
Are employers risk averse?
Maybe a few. If they all were, there would be no need for OSHA.
No, most of them, which is why they all have lawyers.
Dumbass.
It wouldn't happen that way in the real world. In the real world, it would be a positive test along with behavior that deems the employee unfit for duty. Now, I also happen to believe that workplaces should have substance abuse policies that are supportive, not just punitive. Anyone can fuck up, if someone pops positive, get them to EAP and link them up with resources and get them some help. I don't think employers SHOULD fire them on the spot, but the law says they can.
I also know that employers are risk averse and can understand why they would want to terminate someone who is coming to work positive for drugs. That is a potential workplace safety issue that can be VERY costly.
My dad is a safety director for a large employer so I have a bit of a window into these issues.
UNNNNGGGGG! Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test. This is pretty straightforward.
Positive MJ test is not proof of impairment.
Are employers risk averse?
Maybe a few. If they all were, there would be no need for OSHA.
No, most of them, which is why they all have lawyers.
Dumbass.
RWHN rage is fucking awesome. Stella just owned the FUCK out of him. Watch the froth.
UNNNNGGGGG! Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test. This is pretty straightforward.
Positive MJ test is not proof of impairment.
Are employers risk averse?
Maybe a few. If they all were, there would be no need for OSHA.
No, most of them, which is why they all have lawyers.
Dumbass.
RWHN rage is fucking awesome. Stella just owned the FUCK out of him. Watch the froth.
Right, the lawyers are just around for kicks, not to advise them on how to not to be on the hook and losing tons of money. It's the blind leading the blind at PD.COM
Including, workplace safety.
Including, workplace safety.
So we've also learned in this thread that OSHA isn't necessary because lawyers.
And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.
And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.
And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.
Some employers are dicks. Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way. An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture, If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.
But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others. Do you disagree with that notion? If so, why?
What you're ignoring is that the test is not an accurate measurement of impairment.You've been ignoring from the start the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, with regards to workplace safety (aka people not being impaired and turning people into jelly with heavy machinery) and the legal status is a moot point. I've tried like 3 different ways to get you to acknowledge it but you refuse to even address the point.
I'm sorry? I completely admit that MJ is imparing, when you're high. Your posts make you appear to think that if you show up positive on a pee test for pot, you're high.
What you're ignoring is that the test is not an accurate measurement of impairment.
WHICH IS MY ENTIRE POINT RIGHT NOW.
If you can't tell if someone is impaired then you are fucked anyway. There are 5000 ways to be impaired, focussing the attention on these tests is stupid. test for reaction time or something.And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.
Some employers are dicks. Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way. An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture, If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.
But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others. Do you disagree with that notion? If so, why?
And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.
Some employers are dicks. Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way. An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture, If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.
But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others. Do you disagree with that notion? If so, why?
And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.
Some employers are dicks. Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way. An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture, If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.
But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others. Do you disagree with that notion? If so, why?
There you go, assuming facts not in evidence.
I think Scooter is a shill, being paid here to front these particular opinions and make these arguments, and given that he /is/ getting paid, this is why he refuses to leave. Apparently this is becoming a popular way to spread propaganda these days, so I wouldn't put it past the FDA.
I think Scooter is a shill, being paid here to front these particular opinions and make these arguments, and given that he /is/ getting paid, this is why he refuses to leave. Apparently this is becoming a popular way to spread propaganda these days, so I wouldn't put it past the FDA.
I think Scooter is a shill, being paid here to front these particular opinions and make these arguments, and given that he /is/ getting paid, this is why he refuses to leave. Apparently this is becoming a popular way to spread propaganda these days, so I wouldn't put it past the FDA.
:o
You really think the FDA, DEA, or frankly ANYONE at the federal government gives two shits about a dozen people on a message board?
I stay because I'm entertained.
I mean, really, people denying that people go to work impaired, that is just nutty stuff that you can't find just anywhere.
I'm saying no one gives a shit about a few Discordians.
And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.
Some employers are dicks. Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way. An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture, If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.
But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others. Do you disagree with that notion? If so, why?
There you go, assuming facts not in evidence.
Are you seriously arguing that employees never go to work impaired ever? Really?
Do you guys listen to Coast to Coast at night?
to be fair, I'm pretty sure the astroturfing programs they've paid for are primarily targeting twitter and facebook. He's not playing anchortext games with his links, either.
Yeah, one of the Discordians they don't give a shit about.
Yeah, one of the Discordians they don't give a shit about.
So if this forum is so obscure and insignificant, why are you so worked up about people referring to you by your real name?
Yeah, one of the Discordians they don't give a shit about.
So if this forum is so obscure and insignificant, why are you so worked up about people referring to you by your real name?
Because of creeps like Agrippa and Mr. Bear.
I have kids may I remind you.
Yeah, one of the Discordians they don't give a shit about.
So if this forum is so obscure and insignificant, why are you so worked up about people referring to you by your real name?
Because of creeps like Agrippa and Mr. Bear.
I have kids may I remind you.
Yeah, one of the Discordians they don't give a shit about.
So if this forum is so obscure and insignificant, why are you so worked up about people referring to you by your real name?
Because of creeps like Agrippa and Mr. Bear.
I have kids may I remind you.
Unlike anyone else on this board...
I'm seriously arguing that a piss test is not evidence of impairment.And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.
Some employers are dicks. Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way. An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture, If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.
But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others. Do you disagree with that notion? If so, why?
There you go, assuming facts not in evidence.
Are you seriously arguing that employees never go to work impaired ever? Really?
"anyone else on this board" hasn't had creeps make obscene remarks about their kids,
I'm seriously arguing that a piss test is not evidence of impairment.And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.
Some employers are dicks. Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way. An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture, If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.
But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others. Do you disagree with that notion? If so, why?
There you go, assuming facts not in evidence.
Are you seriously arguing that employees never go to work impaired ever? Really?
An argument that you have yet to address.
I'm seriously arguing that a piss test is not evidence of impairment.And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.
Some employers are dicks. Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way. An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture, If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.
But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others. Do you disagree with that notion? If so, why?
There you go, assuming facts not in evidence.
Are you seriously arguing that employees never go to work impaired ever? Really?
An argument that you have yet to address.
ECH claims there is a reliable test for impairment, if so, then hopefully employers will use them when it is legal. Until all employers get there, they have to use the tools available and make their best judgement. Would you want to be responsible for someone who tested positive and caused a workplace accident that claimed another life?
Or are you going to keep skirting that issue and pretending it doesn't exist?
Yeah, one of the Discordians they don't give a shit about.
So if this forum is so obscure and insignificant, why are you so worked up about people referring to you by your real name?
Because of creeps like Agrippa and Mr. Bear.
I have kids may I remind you.
"anyone else on this board" hasn't had creeps make obscene remarks about their kids,
Yeah? Do tell.
Yeah, one of the Discordians they don't give a shit about.
So if this forum is so obscure and insignificant, why are you so worked up about people referring to you by your real name?
Because of creeps like Agrippa and Mr. Bear.
I have kids may I remind you.
I'm not in the throw children in jail business.
"anyone else on this board" hasn't had creeps make obscene remarks about their kids,
Yeah? Do tell.
And you are aiding and abetting them by publishing PI without permission. You feel good aboit yourself?
I'm seriously arguing that a piss test is not evidence of impairment.And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.
Some employers are dicks. Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way. An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture, If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.
But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others. Do you disagree with that notion? If so, why?
There you go, assuming facts not in evidence.
Are you seriously arguing that employees never go to work impaired ever? Really?
An argument that you have yet to address.
"anyone else on this board" hasn't had creeps make obscene remarks about their kids,
Yeah? Do tell.
And you are aiding and abetting them by publishing PI without permission. You feel good aboit yourself?
Obscene remarks about your kids, scooter? I believe I missed that. Perhaps you can link me to it.
"anyone else on this board" hasn't had creeps make obscene remarks about their kids,
Yeah? Do tell.
And you are aiding and abetting them by publishing PI without permission. You feel good aboit yourself?
Obscene remarks about your kids, scooter? I believe I missed that. Perhaps you can link me to it.
"anyone else on this board" hasn't had creeps make obscene remarks about their kids,
Yeah? Do tell.
And you are aiding and abetting them by publishing PI without permission. You feel good aboit yourself?
Obscene remarks about your kids, scooter? I believe I missed that. Perhaps you can link me to it.
I once had someone on this forum claim they were going to come to my house and stomp me. Strangely, they never showed... even after I pm'd them my address. Funny thing about internet tough guys.
"anyone else on this board" hasn't had creeps make obscene remarks about their kids,
Yeah? Do tell.
And you are aiding and abetting them by publishing PI without permission. You feel good aboit yourself?
Obscene remarks about your kids, scooter? I believe I missed that. Perhaps you can link me to it.
I once had someone on this forum claim they were going to come to my house and stomp me. Strangely, they never showed... even after I pm'd them my address. Funny thing about internet tough guys.
CU or GITM? :lulz:
"anyone else on this board" hasn't had creeps make obscene remarks about their kids,
Yeah? Do tell.
And you are aiding and abetting them by publishing PI without permission. You feel good aboit yourself?
Obscene remarks about your kids, scooter? I believe I missed that. Perhaps you can link me to it.
Have you forgotten about Agrippa who wanted to go out with my (then) 5 year old girl?
You think that's funny?
to be fair, I'm pretty sure the astroturfing programs they've paid for are primarily targeting twitter and facebook. He's not playing anchortext games with his links, either.
I don't think he is, either, to be perfectly honest. Because he'd have been fired for incompetence years ago. He's convinced more people to be rabidy anti-prohibition than anything else. I know I went from being on the fence in 2010 (I was in favor of decriminalization but not really legalization) to wanting weed to be completely legalized in 2012.
And I am reasonably certain that I am not alone in that.
to be fair, I'm pretty sure the astroturfing programs they've paid for are primarily targeting twitter and facebook. He's not playing anchortext games with his links, either.
I don't think he is, either, to be perfectly honest. Because he'd have been fired for incompetence years ago. He's convinced more people to be rabidy anti-prohibition than anything else. I know I went from being on the fence in 2010 (I was in favor of decriminalization but not really legalization) to wanting weed to be completely legalized in 2012.
And I am reasonably certain that I am not alone in that.
I've been saying for over a year that sometimes I'm half-convinced that he's working for the legalization campaign, because he's sort of the one-man Westboro Baptist Church of prohibition.
Here's Agrippa's account.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4374
I looked through the 6 pages of posts he has, and I didn't see anything like that. I may have missed it, in which case you could perhaps point it out?
to be fair, I'm pretty sure the astroturfing programs they've paid for are primarily targeting twitter and facebook. He's not playing anchortext games with his links, either.
I don't think he is, either, to be perfectly honest. Because he'd have been fired for incompetence years ago. He's convinced more people to be rabidy anti-prohibition than anything else. I know I went from being on the fence in 2010 (I was in favor of decriminalization but not really legalization) to wanting weed to be completely legalized in 2012.
And I am reasonably certain that I am not alone in that.
I've been saying for over a year that sometimes I'm half-convinced that he's working for the legalization campaign, because he's sort of the one-man Westboro Baptist Church of prohibition.
:lulz:
Here's Agrippa's account.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4374
I looked through the 6 pages of posts he has, and I didn't see anything like that. I may have missed it, in which case you could perhaps point it out?
Perhaps this?
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,18695.msg620883.html#msg620883
I'm seriously arguing that a piss test is not evidence of impairment.And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.
Some employers are dicks. Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way. An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture, If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.
But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others. Do you disagree with that notion? If so, why?
There you go, assuming facts not in evidence.
Are you seriously arguing that employees never go to work impaired ever? Really?
An argument that you have yet to address.
I have addressed it, you don't like the answer.
Employers are risk averse.
ECH claims there is a reliable test for impairment, if so, then hopefully employers will use them when it is legal. Until all employers get there, they have to use the tools available and make their best judgement. Would you want to be responsible for someone who tested positive and caused a workplace accident that claimed another life?
Or are you going to keep skirting that issue and pretending it doesn't exist?
Here's Agrippa's account.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4374
I looked through the 6 pages of posts he has, and I didn't see anything like that. I may have missed it, in which case you could perhaps point it out?
Perhaps this?
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,18695.msg620883.html#msg620883
Yep. Dealt with.
When your kids get on the internet you're going to have heart attacks DAILY.
The point being, there are creeps like that, like Loveshade, who come to this site, you know this, you know I have kids, YET, you grease the wheels for these creeps anyway.
You are a pathetic excuse of a man.
When your kids get on the internet you're going to have heart attacks DAILY.
So that's an excuse?
PD.COM used to be a place where we talked about going after pedos now we are apologizing for making their work easier? Really?
The point being, there are creeps like that, like Loveshade, who come to this site, you know this, you know I have kids, YET, you grease the wheels for these creeps anyway.
You are a pathetic excuse of a man.
This didn't seem to be a problem when my old man was being harrassed by Loveshade's crew. No, at that point you lectured me on the very thing you have done...Allowing PI to flop all over the place.
"Bread crumbs", I believe you called them.
So, you know, fuck off. :lulz:
PD.COM used to be a place where we talked about going after pedos now we are apologizing for making their work easier? Really?
I'm just laughing at your rather mutable standard, which seems to consist entirely on whether you are on the receiving end, you loathesome fucking hypocrite.
:lol:
The point being, there are creeps like that, like Loveshade, who come to this site, you know this, you know I have kids, YET, you grease the wheels for these creeps anyway.
You are a pathetic excuse of a man.
This didn't seem to be a problem when my old man was being harrassed by Loveshade's crew. No, at that point you lectured me on the very thing you have done...Allowing PI to flop all over the place.
"Bread crumbs", I believe you called them.
So, you know, fuck off. :lulz:
And you happily assemble them here in one place.
PD.COM used to be a place where we talked about going after pedos now we are apologizing for making their work easier? Really?
PD.COM used to be a place where we talked about going after pedos now we are apologizing for making their work easier? Really?
Did anyone ever post things about your kids here (besides pot shots about how they'd grow up under your regime)?
The point being, there are creeps like that, like Loveshade, who come to this site, you know this, you know I have kids, YET, you grease the wheels for these creeps anyway.
You are a pathetic excuse of a man.
This didn't seem to be a problem when my old man was being harrassed by Loveshade's crew. No, at that point you lectured me on the very thing you have done...Allowing PI to flop all over the place.
"Bread crumbs", I believe you called them.
So, you know, fuck off. :lulz:
And you happily assemble them here in one place.
No, actually, you happily assembled them
PD.COM used to be a place where we talked about going after pedos now we are apologizing for making their work easier? Really?
Did anyone ever post things about your kids here (besides pot shots about how they'd grow up under your regime)?
The point being, there are creeps like that, like Loveshade, who come to this site, you know this, you know I have kids, YET, you grease the wheels for these creeps anyway.
You are a pathetic excuse of a man.
All because I didn't fall over myself apologizing when I didn't know a thread was linked to people messing with his father.
Is that a valid excuse to post someone's PI?
PD.COM used to be a place where we talked about going after pedos now we are apologizing for making their work easier? Really?
PD.COM used to be a place where we talked about going after pedos now we are apologizing for making their work easier? Really?
DOUR has assembled enough of my information here for someone, at a minimum, to locate where I work. With a few more keystrokes, where I and my kids live.
I would appreciate it if you would take corrective action.
DOUR hasI have assembled enough of my information here for someone, at a minimum, to locate where I work. With a few more keystrokes, where I and my kids live.
I would appreciate it if you would take corrective action.
DOUR has assembled enough of my information here for someone, at a minimum, to locate where I work. With a few more keystrokes, where I and my kids live.
I would appreciate it if you would take corrective action.
I want a cease and desist on posting my name.
I want a cease and desist on posting my name.
I want a cease and desist on posting my name.
Certainly, pull the article it was quoted from, because right now its in the public domain.
I've posted where I work,
nopeI want a cease and desist on posting my name.
Certainly, pull the article it was quoted from, because right now its in the public domain.
I was hoping for something a little more ethical from you. You realize the precedent that is being established right?
All because I didn't fall over myself apologizing when I didn't know a thread was linked to people messing with his father.
Is that a valid excuse to post someone's PI?
I want a cease and desist on posting my name.
DOUR has assembled enough of my information
All because I didn't fall over myself apologizing when I didn't know a thread was linked to people messing with his father.
Is that a valid excuse to post someone's PI?
1. I didn't post your PI.
2. You are a smug little bastard that saw fit to LECTURE when shit happened to other people. Boo hoo hoo, shitstain.
DOUR has assembled enough of my information
:lulz:
Yes, making that Youtube video of you was pure evil genius on my part.
All because I didn't fall over myself apologizing when I didn't know a thread was linked to people messing with his father.
Is that a valid excuse to post someone's PI?
1. I didn't post your PI.
Yes you did, and boasted about it as being revenge for, oh my, shortening your name. Which you did selectively, which I think is something you were just whining about in Nigel's thread.Quote2. You are a smug little bastard that saw fit to LECTURE when shit happened to other people. Boo hoo hoo, shitstain.
That's been proven to be a lie.
I want a cease and desist on posting my name.
Certainly, pull the article it was quoted from, because right now its in the public domain.
I was hoping for something a little more ethical from you. You realize the precedent that is being established right?
DOUR has assembled enough of my information
:lulz:
Yes, making that Youtube video of you was pure evil genius on my part.
Funny how he was totally "not concerned" about it when I pointed out that bragging about the article would be all anyone needed to find out what his name is and where he works. :kingmeh:
Concerned, not concerned, concerned, not concerned. It's dizzying.
Well, that was when I had thought people here had some ethics. DOUR has proven me wrong. You are right, I should've been more careful with his type hanging around here.
I want a cease and desist on posting my name.
I want a cease and desist on posting my name.
Certainly, pull the article it was quoted from, because right now its in the public domain.
I was hoping for something a little more ethical from you. You realize the precedent that is being established right?
I'm weighing it up. The fact is they didn't take it from someone's facebook page. It came from an article by an expert in the field of drugs control, readily available, and used, primarily here in a discussion on drug control.
Like it or not you are a public figure now.
Let me try to create a hypothetical example; say for example a writer had published a shitty book. For the sake of argument we'll call him Benny Mack.
We discuss and review the book, and in our personal tastes we don't like it. He shows up to talk about the book and we discuss it with him.
Now if he was to choose then to say no how dare you remove my name from this site, I'd be very confused. He put it in the public domain for consumption, and can't react shocked and tell them they as a group may not refer to him by name when discussing this book.
You've mixed work and internet discussions and it's not gone well. A lot of people here don't agree with your views.
I don't think your kids are in the slightest danger from your name being quoted from a news article you were interviewed for, If I was, it would be gone already.
I want a cease and desist on posting my name.
Certainly, pull the article it was quoted from, because right now its in the public domain.
I was hoping for something a little more ethical from you. You realize the precedent that is being established right?
I'm weighing it up. The fact is they didn't take it from someone's facebook page. It came from an article by an expert in the field of drugs control, readily available, and used, primarily here in a discussion on drug control.
Like it or not you are a public figure now.
Let me try to create a hypothetical example; say for example a writer had published a shitty book. For the sake of argument we'll call him Benny Mack.
We discuss and review the book, and in our personal tastes we don't like it. He shows up to talk about the book and we discuss it with him.
Now if he was to choose then to say no how dare you remove my name from this site, I'd be very confused. He put it in the public domain for consumption, and can't react shocked and tell them they as a group may not refer to him by name when discussing this book.
You've mixed work and internet discussions and it's not gone well. A lot of people here don't agree with your views.
I don't think your kids are in the slightest danger from your name being quoted from a news article you were interviewed for, If I was, it would be gone already.
And what about Bear's public declarations? On YOUR site?
If you told me you were afraid your job was in danger, or that you are worried your boss might find this place I'd delete your name out straight away.
Firstly, because this is a forum, we mess around but I don't want someone getting into trouble over it, and secondly because you used to be a fun guy.
But you didn't.
You said that you were worried about a hypothetical pedophile seeking out your kids based on the fact that your name had been posted here.
You can still go back on that. Admit that the job thing is what you are worried about and I'll take the flack from the other admins for deleting it.
I want a cease and desist on posting my name.
Certainly, pull the article it was quoted from, because right now its in the public domain.
I was hoping for something a little more ethical from you. You realize the precedent that is being established right?
I'm weighing it up. The fact is they didn't take it from someone's facebook page. It came from an article by an expert in the field of drugs control, readily available, and used, primarily here in a discussion on drug control.
Like it or not you are a public figure now.
Let me try to create a hypothetical example; say for example a writer had published a shitty book. For the sake of argument we'll call him Benny Mack.
We discuss and review the book, and in our personal tastes we don't like it. He shows up to talk about the book and we discuss it with him.
Now if he was to choose then to say no how dare you remove my name from this site, I'd be very confused. He put it in the public domain for consumption, and can't react shocked and tell them they as a group may not refer to him by name when discussing this book.
You've mixed work and internet discussions and it's not gone well. A lot of people here don't agree with your views.
I don't think your kids are in the slightest danger from your name being quoted from a news article you were interviewed for, If I was, it would be gone already.
And what about Bear's public declarations? On YOUR site?
DOUR has assembled enough of my information
:lulz:
Yes, making that Youtube video of you was pure evil genius on my part.
Funny how he was totally "not concerned" about it when I pointed out that bragging about the article would be all anyone needed to find out what his name is and where he works. :kingmeh:
Concerned, not concerned, concerned, not concerned. It's dizzying.
I don't worry about his concern. He's part of the mechanism that puts kids in prison. Also, he's a shitbird on a personal level.
No sympathy, here.
If you told me you were afraid your job was in danger, or that you are worried your boss might find this place I'd delete your name out straight away.
Firstly, because this is a forum, we mess around but I don't want someone getting into trouble over it, and secondly because you used to be a fun guy.
But you didn't.
You said that you were worried about a hypothetical pedophile seeking out your kids based on the fact that your name had been posted here.
You can still go back on that. Admit that the job thing is what you are worried about and I'll take the flack from the other admins for deleting it.
If he's deleted, he should also be blocked. Because I can tell you RIGHT NOW what the weasel is going to do the moment he's deleted.
I want a cease and desist on posting my name.
Certainly, pull the article it was quoted from, because right now its in the public domain.
I was hoping for something a little more ethical from you. You realize the precedent that is being established right?
I'm weighing it up. The fact is they didn't take it from someone's facebook page. It came from an article by an expert in the field of drugs control, readily available, and used, primarily here in a discussion on drug control.
Like it or not you are a public figure now.
Let me try to create a hypothetical example; say for example a writer had published a shitty book. For the sake of argument we'll call him Benny Mack.
We discuss and review the book, and in our personal tastes we don't like it. He shows up to talk about the book and we discuss it with him.
Now if he was to choose then to say no how dare you remove my name from this site, I'd be very confused. He put it in the public domain for consumption, and can't react shocked and tell them they as a group may not refer to him by name when discussing this book.
You've mixed work and internet discussions and it's not gone well. A lot of people here don't agree with your views.
I don't think your kids are in the slightest danger from your name being quoted from a news article you were interviewed for, If I was, it would be gone already.
And what about Bear's public declarations? On YOUR site?
If you told me you were afraid your job was in danger, or that you are worried your boss might find this place I'd delete your name out straight away.
Firstly, because this is a forum, we mess around but I don't want someone getting into trouble over it, and secondly because you used to be a fun guy.
But you didn't.
You said that you were worried about a hypothetical pedophile seeking out your kids based on the fact that your name had been posted here.
You can still go back on that. Admit that the job thing is what you are worried about and I'll take the flack from the other admins for deleting it.
If he's deleted, he should also be blocked. Because I can tell you RIGHT NOW what the weasel is going to do the moment he's deleted.
If for whatever reasons a protracted, expensive, international lawsuit was filed against my broke ass I would reinstate those messages, backups exist for a reason. But I would take it on good faith that if I do delete his name that is the end of it.
if I do delete his name that is the end of it.
How about this, when I came home today, my front door in my garage, which had been locked, and the inner entry door in my breezeway, which had also been closed, were both open and ajar. I am the only person who has a key to this house.
So yeah, I'm a little concerned right now. So I'm asking you to provide one less place where people can get information to locate me.
Delete my name and I would like a cease and desist on all future postings of my name.
if I do delete his name that is the end of it.
PLEASE GAWD NO DONT LET THIS BE OVER I DONT WANT TO GO BACK TO WATCHING SPORTSCENTER I HATE YOUR ONE AND ONLY SON TIM TEBOW SO MUCH I CANT TAKE IT ANYMORE
I want a cease and desist on posting my name.
Certainly, pull the article it was quoted from, because right now its in the public domain.
I was hoping for something a little more ethical from you. You realize the precedent that is being established right?
I'm weighing it up. The fact is they didn't take it from someone's facebook page. It came from an article by an expert in the field of drugs control, readily available, and used, primarily here in a discussion on drug control.
Like it or not you are a public figure now.
Let me try to create a hypothetical example; say for example a writer had published a shitty book. For the sake of argument we'll call him Benny Mack.
We discuss and review the book, and in our personal tastes we don't like it. He shows up to talk about the book and we discuss it with him.
Now if he was to choose then to say no how dare you remove my name from this site, I'd be very confused. He put it in the public domain for consumption, and can't react shocked and tell them they as a group may not refer to him by name when discussing this book.
You've mixed work and internet discussions and it's not gone well. A lot of people here don't agree with your views.
I don't think your kids are in the slightest danger from your name being quoted from a news article you were interviewed for, If I was, it would be gone already.
And what about Bear's public declarations? On YOUR site?
I have no idea what bear said. I don't read every post on this site. Link if you like.
If you told me you were afraid your job was in danger, or that you are worried your boss might find this place I'd delete your name out straight away.
Firstly, because this is a forum, we mess around but I don't want someone getting into trouble over it, and secondly because you used to be a fun guy.
But you didn't.
You said that you were worried about a hypothetical pedophile seeking out your kids based on the fact that your name had been posted here.
You can still go back on that. Admit that the job thing is what you are worried about and I'll take the flack from the other admins for deleting it.
if I do delete his name that is the end of it.
PLEASE GAWD NO DONT LET THIS BE OVER I DONT WANT TO GO BACK TO WATCHING SPORTSCENTER I HATE YOUR ONE AND ONLY SON TIM TEBOW SO MUCH I CANT TAKE IT ANYMORE
How about this, when I came home today, my front door in my garage, which had been locked, and the inner entry door in my breezeway, which had also been closed, were both open and ajar. I am the only person who has a key to this house.
So yeah, I'm a little concerned right now. So I'm asking you to provide one less place where people can get information to locate me.
Delete my name and I would like a cease and desist on all future postings of my name.
Hrm. Ok. You could just be bullshitting me to get me to do this, but I will.
Wait. Your fiance lives with you, but you didn't give her a key?
WTF?
:lulz:
I want a cease and desist on posting my name.
Certainly, pull the article it was quoted from, because right now its in the public domain.
I was hoping for something a little more ethical from you. You realize the precedent that is being established right?
I'm weighing it up. The fact is they didn't take it from someone's facebook page. It came from an article by an expert in the field of drugs control, readily available, and used, primarily here in a discussion on drug control.
Like it or not you are a public figure now.
Let me try to create a hypothetical example; say for example a writer had published a shitty book. For the sake of argument we'll call him Benny Mack.
We discuss and review the book, and in our personal tastes we don't like it. He shows up to talk about the book and we discuss it with him.
Now if he was to choose then to say no how dare you remove my name from this site, I'd be very confused. He put it in the public domain for consumption, and can't react shocked and tell them they as a group may not refer to him by name when discussing this book.
You've mixed work and internet discussions and it's not gone well. A lot of people here don't agree with your views.
I don't think your kids are in the slightest danger from your name being quoted from a news article you were interviewed for, If I was, it would be gone already.
And what about Bear's public declarations? On YOUR site?
I have no idea what bear said. I don't read every post on this site. Link if you like.
I said something along the lines of ruining his IRL if he draws FIRST BLOOD on here by posting people's info, and ruining their IRL. I said I have already got his info saved on my laptop, and I'm waiting those 4 months til he gets married to strike. I know he's going to since that's when he going to burn all the bridges behind him and with everyone here. After those four months I'll delete whatever info. I hate little shit heads like him. If you don't believe me he is going to do this and be that asshole then let me remind you about the HFTs.
Wait. Your fiance lives with you, but you didn't give her a key?
WTF?
:lulz:
No no no no it's like that. It's that his "fiance" "lives" "with" "him". If you know what I mean.
What happens if she gets home before you, scooter? Does she have to wait on the porch, or have you made arrangements with the neighbor?
:lulz:
What happens if she gets home before you, scooter? Does she have to wait on the porch, or have you made arrangements with the neighbor?
:lulz:
HEY! AT LEAST HE LETS HER KNOW WHERE HIS HOUSE IS! :lulz:
Hrm. Ok. You could just be bullshitting me to get me to do this, but I will.
He is. He stated that his fiance now lives with him. Then he says he's the only person with a key.
Hrm. Ok. You could just be bullshitting me to get me to do this, but I will.
He is. He stated that his fiance now lives with him. Then he says he's the only person with a key.
Women lack the brain matter to understand the mechanical process of a lock. I'm sure he can cite credible information he's done research on. I have to believe him I'm not a big shot with a office that can hold 10 people at one time.
Wait. Your fiance lives with you, but you didn't give her a key?
WTF?
:lulz:
No no no no it's like that. It's that his "fiance" "lives" "with" "him". If you know what I mean.
Like, attached to his right wrist?
Wait. Your fiance lives with you, but you didn't give her a key?
WTF?
:lulz:
No no no no it's like that. It's that his "fiance" "lives" "with" "him". If you know what I mean.
Like, attached to his right wrist?
I "datamined" her online. She's blondish:
(http://www.seabreeze.com.au/Img/Photos/Other/4806859.jpg)
Pfffft Roger and I "data mined" you ages ago, remember us laughing about your employment and educational credentials not being what you led on? Pretty sure it isn't against any rules to datamine people. I do it all the time just because I'm bored/curious/want to know who I'm really dealing with/whether they're dangerous. That's why I mentioned to you when you boasted about that article being published that it was all anyone needed to identify you and find all your other publicly-available information. That was a friendly heads-up, Scooter, since you had made such a strong statement earlier about not posting identifiable info online. And at the time, you said you weren't really concerned about it. So, you know, not being concerned about it and all, you seem to be contradicting yourself more than a little bit here.
Hrm. Ok. You could just be bullshitting me to get me to do this, but I will.
He is. He stated that his fiance now lives with him. Then he says he's the only person with a key.
Pfffft Roger and I "data mined" you ages ago, remember us laughing about your employment and educational credentials not being what you led on? Pretty sure it isn't against any rules to datamine people. I do it all the time just because I'm bored/curious/want to know who I'm really dealing with/whether they're dangerous. That's why I mentioned to you when you boasted about that article being published that it was all anyone needed to identify you and find all your other publicly-available information. That was a friendly heads-up, Scooter, since you had made such a strong statement earlier about not posting identifiable info online. And at the time, you said you weren't really concerned about it. So, you know, not being concerned about it and all, you seem to be contradicting yourself more than a little bit here.
I want a cease and desist on posting my name.
Certainly, pull the article it was quoted from, because right now its in the public domain.
I was hoping for something a little more ethical from you. You realize the precedent that is being established right?
I'm weighing it up. The fact is they didn't take it from someone's facebook page. It came from an article by an expert in the field of drugs control, readily available, and used, primarily here in a discussion on drug control.
Like it or not you are a public figure now.
Let me try to create a hypothetical example; say for example a writer had published a shitty book. For the sake of argument we'll call him Benny Mack.
We discuss and review the book, and in our personal tastes we don't like it. He shows up to talk about the book and we discuss it with him.
Now if he was to choose then to say no how dare you remove my name from this site, I'd be very confused. He put it in the public domain for consumption, and can't react shocked and tell them they as a group may not refer to him by name when discussing this book.
You've mixed work and internet discussions and it's not gone well. A lot of people here don't agree with your views.
I don't think your kids are in the slightest danger from your name being quoted from a news article you were interviewed for, If I was, it would be gone already.
And what about Bear's public declarations? On YOUR site?
I have no idea what bear said. I don't read every post on this site. Link if you like.
I said something along the lines of ruining his IRL if he draws FIRST BLOOD on here by posting people's info, and ruining their IRL. I said I have already got his info saved on my laptop, and I'm waiting those 4 months til he gets married to counter strike. I know he's going to do this since that's when he's going to burn all the bridges behind him and with everyone else on it. After those four months I'll delete whatever info. I hate little shit heads like him. If you don't believe me he is going to do this and be that asshole then let me remind you about the HFTs.
Hrm. Ok. You could just be bullshitting me to get me to do this, but I will.
He is. He stated that his fiance now lives with him. Then he says he's the only person with a key.
Probably, but I'm not really interested in examining real life claims. Same goes for any of the people how have had shitty exes who needed help here, I'm going to take it at its word.
How to proceed now though... no pm yet. Veerry tired.
Hrm. Ok. You could just be bullshitting me to get me to do this, but I will.
He is. He stated that his fiance now lives with him. Then he says he's the only person with a key.
Probably, but I'm not really interested in examining real life claims. Same goes for any of the people how have had shitty exes who needed help here, I'm going to take it at its word.
How to proceed now though... no pm yet. Veerry tired.
To who. Its not in my pm inbox.
Hrm. Ok. You could just be bullshitting me to get me to do this, but I will.
He is. He stated that his fiance now lives with him. Then he says he's the only person with a key.
Probably, but I'm not really interested in examining real life claims. Same goes for any of the people how have had shitty exes who needed help here, I'm going to take it at its word.
How to proceed now though... no pm yet. Veerry tired.
Sent
That house has beautiful wall paper.
To who. Its not in my pm inbox.
Hrm. Ok. You could just be bullshitting me to get me to do this, but I will.
He is. He stated that his fiance now lives with him. Then he says he's the only person with a key.
Probably, but I'm not really interested in examining real life claims. Same goes for any of the people how have had shitty exes who needed help here, I'm going to take it at its word.
How to proceed now though... no pm yet. Veerry tired.
Sent
To who. Its not in my pm inbox.
Hrm. Ok. You could just be bullshitting me to get me to do this, but I will.
He is. He stated that his fiance now lives with him. Then he says he's the only person with a key.
Probably, but I'm not really interested in examining real life claims. Same goes for any of the people how have had shitty exes who needed help here, I'm going to take it at its word.
How to proceed now though... no pm yet. Veerry tired.
Sent
To who. Its not in my pm inbox.
Hrm. Ok. You could just be bullshitting me to get me to do this, but I will.
He is. He stated that his fiance now lives with him. Then he says he's the only person with a key.
Probably, but I'm not really interested in examining real life claims. Same goes for any of the people how have had shitty exes who needed help here, I'm going to take it at its word.
How to proceed now though... no pm yet. Veerry tired.
Sent
Shit, clicked the wrong thing, I think it went to your e-mail, I'll try again.
Miracles never cease. :lol:
One thing Scooter didn't lie about. ONE.
It appears I missed all the fun. Bearman just summoned me from the vast reaches of the interbutts to share the news.
Jesus Fuck.
This drama is over, nothing to see here folks.
It appears I missed all the fun. Bearman just summoned me from the vast reaches of the interbutts to share the news.
Jesus Fuck.
Last Saturday I was at a party and a kid walked in with a Nirvana shirt on. Thinking of this thread I said, "Hey, man, you know they're up for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame this year?"
He said, "Oh."
And I left that party two hours later, puzzled.
Where were the threats? Where was the yelling and the berating?
I didn't know what to do. These were not my people. :?
Last Saturday I was at a party and a kid walked in with a Nirvana shirt on. Thinking of this thread I said, "Hey, man, you know they're up for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame this year?"
He said, "Oh."
And I left that party two hours later, puzzled.
Where were the threats? Where was the yelling and the berating?
I didn't know what to do. These were not my people. :?
Last Saturday I was at a party and a kid walked in with a Nirvana shirt on. Thinking of this thread I said, "Hey, man, you know they're up for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame this year?"
He said, "Oh."
And I left that party two hours later, puzzled.
Where were the threats? Where was the yelling and the berating?
I didn't know what to do. These were not my people. :?
I want a cease and desist on posting my name.
How about this, when I came home today, my front door in my garage, which had been locked, and the inner entry door in my breezeway, which had also been closed, were both open and ajar. I am the only person who has a key to this house.
So yeah, I'm a little concerned right now. So I'm asking you to provide one less place where people can get information to locate me.
Delete my name and I would like a cease and desist on all future postings of my name.
Hrm. Ok. You could just be bullshitting me to get me to do this, but I will.
Send me your name (I don't know it), and I'll personally delete it from the db now (or first thing tomorrow morning depending on when I get your message).
How about this, when I came home today, my front door in my garage, which had been locked, and the inner entry door in my breezeway, which had also been closed, were both open and ajar. I am the only person who has a key to this house.
So yeah, I'm a little concerned right now. So I'm asking you to provide one less place where people can get information to locate me.
Delete my name and I would like a cease and desist on all future postings of my name.
Hrm. Ok. You could just be bullshitting me to get me to do this, but I will.
Send me your name (I don't know it), and I'll personally delete it from the db now (or first thing tomorrow morning depending on when I get your message).
If we are forced to delete content on his account I see no reason to continue to allow him to shit here. So if this is done I'm going to shitcan him unless somebody can provide a compelling reason not to. After all, the only reason to comply with his request is that we view him as making a credible legal threat against the site, and that's one of the few things we ban people for.
Is that string going to be cleansed from the database?
P3NT will forever be referred to as being [redacted]ish.
Are we doomed to always refer to our favourite city in Lake County, Florida, United States as "Ma[redacted]e"?
WOE.
What will happen to this thread!? http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=34939.0
ORSON WHO CARD? F WHAT FITZGERALD?
WOOOOOOEEEEE!
Also, I trust we are ONLY deleting posts where his "PI" is made available, and not deleting his entire posting history.
That's a lot of work, doing it manually. I feel like saying something nice to you about doing that but I can't think of exactly how to word it.
That's a lot of work, doing it manually. I feel like saying something nice to you about doing that but I can't think of exactly how to word it.
I appreciate your dedication to this board and admire the tenacity to wade through hundreds of pages of bullshit to do things as properly as possible. That is damn impressive.
That's a lot of work, doing it manually. I feel like saying something nice to you about doing that but I can't think of exactly how to word it.
The Smashing Pumpkins were languishing as a weird alt-metal band, relegated to Headbanger's Ball and 120 Minutes until Nirvana came along.
Another crime to lay at Nirvana's feet.
And where have the Smashing Pumpkins been, recently? Playing county fairs, perhaps?
For better or for worse, they also paved the way for Green Day and The Offspring.
The Offspring formed 3 years before Nirvana.
:|
See, I could get behind the Offspring. But Nirvana? C'mon.
I like about a third of the Offspring's stuff, because it's shouty in a good way.
Angry shouty > whiny shouty.
Uh, "Self-Esteem" ?
It even has the same goddamn riff as Teen Spirit
Let's talk about the cultural influence of an habitual junkie who offed himself. :lulz:
Such an example!
Yeah, this is just my experience here, but I've never heard anyone gush about Nirvana's cultural impact who didn't have a bong in one hand and a crack pipe in the other.
I think we should most definitely commermorate his life and cultural influence on youth.
Maybe we could name a needle exchange program after him.