CUS wrote:
You mean, "I was ignored as is typically the case, despite my contribution being an attempt to say 'Hello, this is the answer you are after', as it generally is. And that's when I decided to be childish. Ehhh, I don't care. Yes, no, whatever.
So, now we're getting to the nub of the matter. You were ignored, 'as usual', when you had 'the answer'.
I'm sorry mate, but that's just paranoid delusion. You were not ignored at all. In fact, loads of people considered what you said, and disagreed with it. Stop looking for monsters where there are none. If you feel that the forum ignores you on all matters then that's a shame, as I don't think that it does.
Quote:
Quote:
IT'S THE FIRST LINE OF THE RULES
WHICH NOBODY HAS EVER READ OUTSIDE OF THE MODZ, APPARENTLY.
Since when was ignorance a decent argument? I'm not a mod and I've read the rules. There have been numerous discussions about the rules. You yourself have mentioned rules numerous times. To then declare that it's only the title of the boards is either foolish or lying.
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, what I was using was irony, but you clearly don't understand that.
You clearly think too much of your writing ability.
Not really. Despite being, in several writing communities, largely lauded for my work and encouraged to become a full-time author, I am fairly insecure about my writing.
Quote:
Quote:
21 regular posters on a forum of this size is a significant porton, and without doubt not a cleek (or indeed a 'cleek').
21 out of 201 is a significant portion? It's a tenth! It's a minority.
We have 201 regular posters do we? 201 people who post every day or thereabouts?
Looking at member stats, 100 of our members have 15 or fewer posts. Almost 50 have 0. As much as it is lovely to cater to everyone, the main body of people who post on this forum do have a right to, y'know, enjoy themselves without being called a clique.
Quote:
Quote:
My logic is impeccable. As, apparently, is your paranoia.
Swap in 'smarminess' and 'breakfast' and I'll agree.
Apologies, Great Chief High Horse.
Quote:
Quote:
Look at the 'Ode to Grim...' thread. Read it from the start and you will see, using LOGIC that nobody had even remotely 'had a go' at you until you started using emotive language such as 'retarded'
Well, I'd previously said "I don't understand any of this. Lousy cliques everywhere." Which makes your reply of:
"I'd hardly say that there was an anti-Grim... cleek on the boards! If anything you're one of the more revered members, I would have thought." rather curious and antagonistic. Curiouser still that you somehow missed that just now. I respond only in kind.
Some points you conveniently missed out:
1 - My post was clearly directed at Grim... - note how I refer to him by name, and then use the word "you're".
2 - So, by saying directly to Grim... that I think he is respected on the boards and that people don't hold a grudge against him (either in the game or on the boards), that's apparently antagonistic? I was paying him a compliment!
I don't mean to be 'curious' or strange here... but I
really don't see how that is antagonistic. Seriously. Can anyone else?
Quote:
Quote:
We were discussing it, and then you made your grand gesture! Or were our discussions not good enough for you?
If by discussion you mean accusing me of being jealous for mentioning it in the first place, or of having some anti-Grim... bias that would make me not want to see a thread about him, then no, that wasn't good enough, especially in response to my small and polite comment.
Your cause and effect is wrong.
You said it was cliquey, some people disagreed, you impolitely said that making the threads was retarded, and THEN someone said you might be sour.
I cannot stress strongly enough that there's no Anti-CUS conspiracy at work here.