let me make one other point. what you see at the beginning of the thread is everything i said. i only had to repost one comment and its clear which one that was. so what you're seeing now is a complete picture of everything. just how bad is it? i'd say except for the "shitty" comment, not too bad at all. what you see is what was banished here to Meta solely b/c hazek can't take the slightest bit of criticism.
It is very bad. You do not have appropriate arguments to support your endless ranting. E.g., since you have this crave for attention, you have to spam useless posts in another thread:
you are insulting. what does this have to do with getting attention? hazek has been caught red handed deleting/censoring posts on two occasions; once directly to me and the other to stan.distortion. read thru the posts from the beginning here. as i said, the only comment that could be construed as "bad" is the "shitty" comment but that was in reaction to an insult hurled at me by hazek. it seems you're just as sensitive as he. if this is your definition of bad you'd better stay away from the Internet otherwise i will continue to hurt your fragile feelings.
I now see I made a big mistake and should have never assumed it is either alright or fair to retroactively set local rules after posts have already been made and apply those rules to those posts.
I apologize to everyone affected by my actions.
WTF? i just found this thread. and you two guys have the temerity to justify your actions of censoring my posts with the ad hominem of "off topic"?
You fail to comprehend why moderation is necessary and you do not know the meaning of "ad hominem":
i do understand why moderation is necessary but i don't think it applies to what i said. btw, here's someone who agrees with my original complaint just so ppl don't think i'm exaggerating when it comes to what Atlas did. this was in a pm to me:
I agree that Atlas has been making too many topics, and I warned him about that. I'm not going to delete the existing topics.
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
my gaud man, its so refreshing to have someone posting reasonable shit here. i've never ventured into these part of the woods until i got banished here and man is it depressing.
yeah, i feel like i'm on Mars or somethin'. oops, better get back "on topic" bashing hazek or else i might get my comments "split off" and moved to somewhere i can't find myself.
You sound quite pathetic and your English writing skill is terrible.
(This is not an "ad hominem". I am not trying to undermine any argument... You have none.)
now you're resorting to lame criticism? who's pathetic? you, i'd say, by bragging about your little VIP and colored coins.
i think that definition is spot on the way i'm using it. if English writing skills are so important to you, how's this?:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118086.msg1269864#msg1269864now go criticize him. you're just a little apologist.
Show Posts
