
If I'd seen the rule (and people complain similarly before) I'd assume you would have.
Not an attack, just an obviously incorrect assumption
( ,
Thu 18 Aug 2011, 12:03,
archived)
Not an attack, just an obviously incorrect assumption

I can't challenge that. The fact remains, if anyone chooses to squawk about an FAQ violation, they should at least be able to produce the rule.
Otherwise, it's all too easy to sling shit at someone on the basis that something didn't set right with them.
( ,
Thu 18 Aug 2011, 12:10,
archived)
Otherwise, it's all too easy to sling shit at someone on the basis that something didn't set right with them.

I think the mods rely on common sense as to posting material suitable for a humour website, although I appreciate its a tough thing to call, one mans funny is another mans reason to gouge their eyes out and never sleep again.
Apologies if you thought I was slinging shit, I was just trying to point out why people seemed upset.
( ,
Thu 18 Aug 2011, 12:19,
archived)
Apologies if you thought I was slinging shit, I was just trying to point out why people seemed upset.

except in the specific context that it occured. But that's all it takes for the weasels to gnaw--they like a good flounce now and again. I'm happy to oblige them.
ed: and no--I realize you were being the diplomat
( ,
Thu 18 Aug 2011, 12:31,
archived)
ed: and no--I realize you were being the diplomat

you managed to make me assume, for a while back there, that you're an autistic necrophiliac, which might not have been the outcome you intended. Tolerant though I was ready to be of such a person.
( ,
Thu 18 Aug 2011, 12:55,
archived)

Just read the thread and you'll see it was nothing more than a response to P69's smart-ass reply, "pics or gtfo." Words applied to this incidental scenario such as "autistic necrophiliac" seem to be coming from another smart ass--tolerant though I am ready to be of such a person, up to a point.
( ,
Thu 18 Aug 2011, 13:20,
archived)