Difference between revisions of "Talk:Communist Mississippi"

Revision as of 12:54, 13 March 2005

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ahem. Sorry. But, well, see the last part of this article.

Now, the entire matter has been discussed in NS' Moderation forum. To put it simple: CM proclaims that he is lacking enough intellect to believe that putting a link he was explicitly told he wasn't allowed to post in the forums into his signature, and thus, into every single post he makes was not illegal.

Now, I'm perfectly certain that he is free to rant about it in his own forums (And hell, he is doing it). I do not believe that NSwiki is supposed to be used for one-sided rants about how the NS moderators are biased and generally against $Political_Movement (I will refrain from ranting about the equally one-sided style of the entire areticle, though).

Given this... I would request the (currently) last section of this article to be turned into either 1. Something with an actual Neutral Point of View, 2. Be killed completely.

Oh, and the explicit statement given by the source of the current version, regarding him/ her/ it intending to explicitly ignore NSwiki's NPOV policy sounds less-than-acceptable, IMHO.

Rezo 08:23, 13 Mar 2005 (GMT)

I think not, sorry... No, wait, I'm not sorry. See, I provided links to information so folks can decide for themselves. I think anybody with an IQ of at least room temperature can see how the deletion was a result of massive mod bias. That is after they see all the proof put forth by my side. I don't see the other side putting forth anything other than, "Well the mods said they said this to him." See, I'm actually putting forth links to information.

Pretty straight forward, don't you think?

Lacking enough intellect? You mean I can't read folks minds. When they say, "Hmmm, you're surprised people didn't respond positively" it somehow is supposed to say to me, "NEVER, EVER! Post that again, have nothing to do with it, or else!" I'm sorry, but most reasonable people won't see it that way. You have no case against me, you can't substantively debate me, so you have to resort to ad hominem attacks against my character (ie. insinuating I'm dumb and lacking intelligence). You're already conceding defeat. You have no grounds on which to debate me, and you know it!

Fabusism2005 8:44 am Eastern, March 13th, 2005 in the year of our Lord.

You were explicitly told to never post it again. You then added it to your signature, thus having it in any and all of your posts, and you are surprised?

You know, for a self- admitted extreme rightwinger, you're quite a bit into searching for pointless excuses, given that it is pretty much what you're against, no?

Point stands. No NPOV, so it is supposed to be killed. If you want NPOV, go, write 'VE was deleted following a variety of disputes. The DOS followed <Links to the relevant threads>.

And nothing else.

Oh, and I might add that you were, in factz, resurrected after the second deletion, which wouldn't have been necessary, were the mods actually biased. Oh, of course you aren't liked. Amazingly enough, people believing that 99% of mankind are going to hell, racists and religious bigots do tend to be disliked by the vast majoriuty of people. For example aforementioned 99%. However, this does not' mean that actual bias was present. As a matter of fact, aforementioned resurrection (You know... Something that means that ZE MODZ! actually admitted to be wrong) suggests the opposite.

And you were retarded enough not to use that chance, instead insulting 99% of NS' userbase.

Not actually seeing, or, alternatively, ignoring this fact just means that you're clearly unable to follow even the most basic concepts of logic.

And this articlöe still needs a Neutral Point of View. Great, no? Rezo 16:54, 13 Mar 2005 (GMT)