Recognising intelligence

For the 800th time Sluffy the main issue is your geriatric friend!

Norpig wrote:No one is saying you need to step back Sluffy other than yourself. I don't want to go elsewhere, i feel at home here apart from the geriatric lodger causing issues 

Well what else can we do differently if the problem is seen to be me facing up to fake accounts on a mission and calling out Wanderlust's fake news?

I don't intend to be leaving the site merely cease fighting to keep the site honest anymore, as quite frankly I'm sick and tired of doing so now.

Norpig wrote:For the 800th time Sluffy the main issue is your geriatric friend!

Then ask BTID and Karly to ban him then.

If they both say yes then I'm outvoted 2 to 1.

I've already said what the main issue is as well you know!

We all know that not everything people post on here about themselves will be at best a white lie, that's not the issue. Does anyone really believe Nat is a woman or that i clean bed pans for a living?

As for Lusty he is entitled to his opinion whether you agree with him or not.

I’ve got Nuts deja vu again

finlaymcdanger wrote:I’ve got Nuts deja vu again

I'm losing the will to live.

Norpig wrote:I've already said what the main issue is as well you know!

We all know that not everything people post on here about themselves will be at best a white lie, that's not the issue. Does anyone really believe Nat is a woman or that i clean bed pans for a living?

As for Lusty he is entitled to his opinion whether you agree with him or not.

Wanderlust can hold any opinion he likes, I've no problem with that.

If it is factually wrong though I'll point it out.

And if Nat isn't a woman and you don't clean bed pans then why should anyone believe Wanderlust is a Business Consultant because he's seldom factual in what he says in that respect?

Goodbye all, i tried and failed, see you whenever.

Norpig wrote:Goodbye all, i tried and failed, see you whenever.

What exactly do you want?

You say Bob should be banned, so ask for a vote.

I've said I'll step back from not keeping the site as honest as I can you you say there's no need for me to do so.

You say 'I know' what the main problem of the site is, well if you're not asking for a vote on Bob and you want me to try and maintain the sites integrity then what is it then because I don't know what you are asking for?

I've offered solutions to both the issues you seem to want and that doesn't seemed to have done the trick for you, so spell it out, what exactly do you want to be done?

A couple of points, Sluffy (3 actually!):

 1. My thread is about whether it is possible to recognise intelligence by looking at someone's face. The US rioters to me looked particularly short of brains, but that may be my prejudice.

You say that you have responded to that, but I can find no trace of a relevant answer from you. Instead you (and others) have taken the debate in a completely different direction that evidently appeals. Not that it really matters to me at all; it's of little significance either way. I don't mind.

2. What do you mean by "an account"? It implies something we pay for. 

I have also asked several times what you mean by a "fake" account, but have never had an answer.
 
  Do you mean one like Nat's  which is clearly not his/her true persona. 

In any case, does it really matter especially if it's entertaining and interesting and is doing no harm?

I can assure you I'm not posting in two different names on here, if that's what you mean.

I do use a different username on the BBC website but it would be bizarre to call myself Okocha on there!

3. I'd also like to know what you mean by "playing games".....

1 - I made the point the intelligence is formed from an accumulation of knowledge and experience and not simply from someone's looks. You can look beautiful and still be as dumb as dog shit and Einstein was hardly a looker was he and he was a genius.

2- You can have free accounts and I am referring to how we identify each other on here, you are posting under the okocha account, I am posting under the Sluffy account.

3 - A person can register under multiple accounts and post seemingly as separate people - for example the Natasha, xmiles and okocha accounts may be seen to be by others three completely different individuals when the reality could be they are the same person who uses these multiple accounts to manipulate and play people in an attempt to achieve whatever their aim is.

This I see as playing games.

As long as these 'games' do not get out of hand then there isn't a problem although personally I've never liked the potential to deceive which is inherent from fake accounts.

As I am somehow renowned for and even ridiculed because of it, the fact is that all this is done on the internet which of course isn't to be taken seriously but unfortunately plenty do.

If Nuts fails, and it's been on it's knees for ages, then where are those who have spent years playing these games going to go to continue them?  If they want to remain doing so on BWFC forums then they won't last long on ww and with tw being the antithesis to ww in my opinion, then I can't see you going down a storm there either.

I would have thought it would be in everyone's mutual interest to stop the games (and that includes Wanderlust) and allow Nuts to heal - but what do I know?

I'm sure people will continue to do exactly what they want because they always know better of course.

As I keep saying I'll stand back and let you all get on with it because my way is clearly seen to be the problem rather than the solution.

If people want fake accounts, being played and manipulated for someone else's amusement and fed fake facts, and to arbitrarily ban whoever they don't like, then who am I to deny them it?

Everyone is picking on Breadman Bob. You bully boys.

Sluffy wrote:1 - I made the point the intelligence is formed from an accumulation of knowledge and experience and not simply from someone's looks.  You can look beautiful and still be as dumb as dog shit and Einstein was hardly a looker was he and he was a genius.

2- You can have free accounts and I am referring to how we identify each other on here, you are posting under the okocha account, I am posting under the Sluffy account.

3 - A person can register under multiple accounts and post seemingly as separate people - for example the Natasha, xmiles and okocha accounts may be seen to be by others three completely different individuals when the reality could be they are the same person who uses these multiple accounts to manipulate and play people in an attempt to achieve whatever their aim is.

This I see as playing games.

As long as these 'games' do not get out of hand then there isn't a problem although personally I've never liked the potential to deceive which is inherent from fake accounts.

As I am somehow renowned for and even ridiculed because of it, the fact is that all this is done on the internet which of course isn't to be taken seriously but unfortunately plenty do.

If Nuts fails, and it's been on it's knees for ages, then where are those who have spent years playing these games going to go to continue them?  If they want to remain doing so on BWFC forums then they won't last long on ww and with tw being the antithesis to ww in my opinion, then I can't see you going down a storm there either.

I would have thought it would be in everyone's mutual interest to stop the games (and that includes Wanderlust) and allow Nuts to heal - but what do I know?

I'm sure people will continue to do exactly what they want because they always know better of course.

As I keep saying I'll stand back and let you all get on with it because my way is clearly seen to be the problem rather than the solution.

If people want fake accounts, being played and manipulated for someone else's amusement and fed fake facts, and to arbitrarily ban whoever they don't like, then who am I to deny them it?

Your problem sluffy is that you think I have more than one account. I don't and you have never offered a shred of evidence that I do. From your explanation above are we meant to assume that you believe Nat, okocha and I are three separate accounts run by one person? If so it simply isn't true.

You are not even consistent in your delusion in that you won't let me pm anybody but as far as I am aware Nat and okocha can.

Sad really.

Let's be fair to Bob. He's the only poster on here who could post a video from Pathe News, and be in real danger of being in it.
Don't shut him up yet, we might find out the real story behind the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand.
And why he didn't pay tax.

I swear by all that is holy that I have only ever had one "account", and that is under the name of Okocha.
 
I believe xmiles tells the truth.

Sluffy, my other question was to do with whether mods can read pms. 

If you value honesty and integrity on the site, as you claim, you will answer my question truthfully, and you will also name the person that you believe to be xmiles' fake pseudonym. I want to be able to trust the mods.

Does anyone think sluffy is going to answer?

He even hides when he is on this site.

xmiles wrote:Does anyone think sluffy is going to answer?

He even hides when he is on this site.

I'm baffled by it all. Getting to the point where I go to log in then do something else instead. Even missed the first 20 minutes of the match last night after falling asleep in the bath.
It's a real shame. Chatbox was lively, and it was nice to see LPP back. We're better than all this backbiting.
Let xmiles use pm's. I don't think he's plotting a murder.

Have people been radicalised by channel 4?

sunlight wrote:Have people been radicalised by channel 4?

I blame Countdown.

Damn Carol Vorderman and her debt consolidation.