Deleted Posts
Oct. 28th, 2004 08:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
naruki_oniConsidering how nasty some people get (myself included, when provoked), I figured it'd be nice to remember some of the posts that were made before they got deleted by self-righteous hypocrites. It's hard to predict which ones will get the axe, but I can make a guess in some cases. Like the one I made here:
That post is in response to their oh-so-subtle rule "- NRK rule: Do not try to make conflicts worse than they already are. It is not funny." listed on the community's User Info page.
I imagine their reasoning went something like this:
TacoBrain: Naruki is a bastard for pointing out that I'm an idiot so convincingly!
Slammedlander: Yeah, he is! He's a boy! He's obviously male! I'm not obsessed with pointing out what I think Naruki's sex is!
OzanBaka: English hate me. Me hate Naruki. Hate me. Eat kitten.
iptv_stalker: We should delete all her posts responding to our unwarranted attacks!
Dragoonlady: Order! If I delete all the letters in your post except for two esses and an ay and then rearrange them, you said the word "ass", and now I have to moderate you!
Salegamine: Why does he keep attacking my innocent love who only attacked him first?
blab_rattus: We need to name a self-righteously hypocritical rule after Naruki that will be encoded so cleverly that nobody will ever figure out it's named after NaRuKi. I propose "NRK"!
I could be wrong, though. :-)
That goes well with your lame-ass "NRK" rule, dipweed.
naruki_oni
2004-10-28 05:43 (link)
You guys make up a rule based on behavior you falsely attribute to me, and it self-righteously ignores the fact that had you idiots not attacked me I would never have posted here in the first place. Way to go!
Self-righteous hypocrites are the worst kind of hypocrites. ;-)
That post is in response to their oh-so-subtle rule "- NRK rule: Do not try to make conflicts worse than they already are. It is not funny." listed on the community's User Info page.
I imagine their reasoning went something like this:
TacoBrain: Naruki is a bastard for pointing out that I'm an idiot so convincingly!
Slammedlander: Yeah, he is! He's a boy! He's obviously male! I'm not obsessed with pointing out what I think Naruki's sex is!
OzanBaka: English hate me. Me hate Naruki. Hate me. Eat kitten.
iptv_stalker: We should delete all her posts responding to our unwarranted attacks!
Dragoonlady: Order! If I delete all the letters in your post except for two esses and an ay and then rearrange them, you said the word "ass", and now I have to moderate you!
Salegamine: Why does he keep attacking my innocent love who only attacked him first?
blab_rattus: We need to name a self-righteously hypocritical rule after Naruki that will be encoded so cleverly that nobody will ever figure out it's named after NaRuKi. I propose "NRK"!
I could be wrong, though. :-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
You're probably wrong then
Date: 2004-10-28 06:31 am (UTC)This is a place we come to enjoy each other's company. In any conflict, there are ways to calm the storm and ways to incite the mob. Please err on the side of calm discussion and try not to intentionally blow things up.
We won't all agree on everything, and why should we. Even though we don't agree, why should we strive to injure others in this community? There are plenty of other places to vent your spleen, take it there please.
Sadly, your recent post is a further example of what Ozan was trying to get away from. Your post reads like the lashing out of an angry person rather than the amusing wit I usually appreciate from you.
I can understand why you would feel strongly about this issue given your run-ins with a lot of the members here. I can also see where you would feel attacked and targeted. I am sorry that is the case.
I always felt that the majority of your posts to UF were entertaining, but then I realized I was skipping over the ones where you escalated things unnecessarily when a little patience would have smoothed things out. I have friended your journal so I can still enjoy your wit, and regret that this community isn't going to be a good fit for you.
Personal insults aside, can you see the intent of this rule and it's positive implications in a new community?
Side note: I have similar feelings about deleted posts when done by the user who popsted them for CYA purposes. I support moderator deleted posts for the good of the community.
If you weren't a part of that community...
Date: 2004-10-28 07:53 am (UTC)Anyhoo, your rejects community has made a point of attacking me before I ever knew they existed, but you only berate me because I had the temerity to respond to those attacks.
You are the kind of self-righteous person who takes the side of those you like and then loudly proclaims yourself to be neutral.
If you can't see why naming that rule after me is deliberately meant to be offensive, then you really belong in that community.
Re: If you weren't a part of that community...
Date: 2004-10-28 08:06 am (UTC)I was intentionally ignoring the whose fault is it and the whole laying of blame because the posts are GONE and I have no way of seeing that. I do agree that the NRK rule violates itself (there's an image) by naming you obliquely and thus escalating the issue unnecesarily.
Note that I said:
I can understand why you would feel strongly about this issue given your run-ins with a lot of the members here. I can also see where you would feel attacked and targeted. I am sorry that is the case.
and
Personal insults aside, can you see the intent of this rule and it's positive implications in a new community?
it's not my rejects community, I can believe they made it a point to discuss you and I can believe that the discussion was negative given your past interactions with them.
I didn't intend to berate you, and am sorry if that is the impression you hold. Actuaslly, I toned down my agreement with you, and tried to just state the facts. I thought I threw in a couple hints about you being the injured party to some extent.
I may have to think about your comment: You are the kind of self-righteous person who takes the side of those you like and then loudly proclaims yourself to be neutral. because it does ring true when I look back at things, and I don't like that. I'd say my fault is more that I loudly proclaim to be neutral and then loudly declare an pinion while trying not to give offense. I should drop at least one of those conditions in any given post :-)
as to choosing who I like and then blindly defending them: it's funny that Slamlander is in the group I'm accused of defending and you're the injured party. I know I offended some people when I defended you and "vilified" Slamlander at times.
reiterate: I was intending to defend the rule, not its name, nor the reasons and history behind how it was created, and am sorry that there was so much tit for tat and sniping involved.
Actually I have no way to know if you're wrong in your supposed dialogue
Date: 2004-10-28 08:27 am (UTC)I never said the rule was bad.
Date: 2004-10-28 08:43 am (UTC)I cannot create a new entry in that community, nor would I want to. As usual, I only responded to places where I was specifically mentioned or referred to. The one whole deleted entry started with a slam against me. That's hardly the spirit of friendliness, there.
BTW, not all those mean-spirited posts are gone. Look at the founding comments (while you still can). See that Kickstart and I are both excluded, for example. Little things dropped here and there show that many of the members aren't as openminded as you.
That comment you are thinking about was toned down a bit, too. The original line was quite a bit worse, given my anger. I reread before posting and edited a bit. Hopefully it is more defensible than what I originally wrote (and also hopefully it will not be true very often in the future).
I do not consider tit for tat a bad thing, obviously. I'm just displeased that the tit was negative, requiring the tat to be likewise.
Not all tits are bad :-)
Date: 2004-10-28 09:20 am (UTC)I saw it.
Date: 2004-10-28 09:26 am (UTC)Re: for correctness sake
Date: 2004-11-03 06:56 am (UTC)Re: I never said the rule was bad.
Date: 2004-11-03 06:55 am (UTC)Perhaps, perhaps not.
Date: 2004-11-03 11:22 am (UTC)If you were to rename your group to something other than "UNWANTED" you might not look pathetic. But don't listen to "the unmentionable one". Gods, some of your members are total fucktards. HTH
Re: Perhaps, perhaps not.
Date: 2004-11-04 07:48 am (UTC)That's what I don't miss about you.
Date: 2004-11-04 05:42 pm (UTC)Re: That's what I don't miss about you.
Date: 2004-11-05 04:10 am (UTC)Re: That's what I don't miss about you.
Date: 2004-11-05 04:12 am (UTC)