72 Hour Suspension? Fair or Unfair? How do you like your c..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Jim Vieira" <whiplashr@wi.rr.com.remove.this.to.reply> wrote in message
news:6ZzNd.4324$Sq5.2194@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> It's not like I can say that I never fall for trolls, but come on
> people, this one worked like a charm on you all. Just forget it.

Any troll that encourages me to look at large-busted women in bikinis is a
*good* troll.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

> This thread was asking you how much censorship
> you like in your games

You have no clue, do you, what censorship is, do you?

In the US we have freedom of expression. However, that does not mean you
can say whatever you want to in my house. If I invite you over as a dinner
guest, and you start swearing up a storm, and I ask you to stop, and you
don't, and then I ask you to leave, and you won't, then I have the perfect
right to call the police and have you forcibly evicted.

You're in Blizzard's house. It's not "your" game, it's Blizzard's game.
They have a right to do pretty much what they want to with their game. You
have no rights at all. Not one, zilch, zero, zippo. It's Blizzard's world,
and you have to live by their rules or not play, and quite clearly you have
chosen the latter.

The fact that they discourage the use of certain words in conversation has
nothing whatsoever to do with censorship.

> But the only thing worse then unjustice is
> people that bend over and accept unjustice
> while do nothing about it.

What injustice? If one of your units dies in LoTR: Battle for Middle Earth
and it gets removed from the playing field, do you get to cry "injustice!"
and rail at the game makers for their unjust rules of the game? Or could it
simply be that there are rules being enforced that have nothing whatsoever
to do with what you personally believe to be just?

It's their game they're allowing you to play. Your "rights" end the moment
you start playing.


--
-Richard

Monual Lifegiver
Prelate of Rodcet Nife
Lotus Cult
Quellious server

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Dennis wrote:
....
> This thread was asking you how much censorship you like in your games
> (note they already have a profanity filter, but still ban people who
> swear or use other words they dont like, ie FAQ).

They can't stop you from saying something like 'pussy', but the
profanity filter is there for those who don't want to hear it.
Your right to free speech stops at the other guy's ears; they have
a right to choose not to hear it, and Blizzard has the right
to choose not to carry it.

In this case, you intentionally bypassed the profanity filter,
by encoding the word using other glyphs. I'm surprised that the
other person chose to petition, but they did and Blizzard backed
them up. If you don't like the way Blizzard handled this, then you
can stop giving them money. It sounds like you've done that, so huzzah.
Bully for you!

--
Barcode

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

spliffeh@hotmail.com (Dennis) wrote:

>This thread was NOT about the definition of the word pussy!
>This thread was asking you how much censorship you like in your games
>This thread was asking you how you'd feel if you were banned
>This thread was about Blizzard's policy

Your *post* was about the things you claim, but the thread was about
other things. Threads drift. Welcome to Usenet.


>Normally I would not pour gas on a fire, but I am posting a follow-up
>because I see that 90% of you HAVE MISSED THE POINT COMPLETELY...

That's funny, because you rather missed some points yourself. Like,
don't circumvent a filter in a deliberate attempt to break the rules
of a game. And don't whine like a baby when you are caught and
punished for it. And don't look for sympathy from a community of
people who by and large understand what it means to be a responsible
participant in an online game.


>This thread was asking you how much censorship you like in your games

If I want to hear idiot children engage in what they think is the
height of clever insult through lame profanity, I can just step
outside and watch the local skateboarders. Or, read a Usenet thread.
When I'm paying to play an online game, part of what I'm paying for is
the opportunity to escape the real world, and some of the stupidity
that comes with it. I guess that translates to "I like censorship of
you idiot children just fine".


>This thread was asking you how you'd feel if you were banned without
>warning for using the word "bush" when referring to a plant, or the
>expression "eager beaver". Etc Etc.

And in one sentence, you completely void your claims that the thread
isn't (or shouldn't be) about definitions. I expect you won't
understand that, though.


>This thread was about Blizzard's policy of handing out 72 hour
>suspensions to anyone they possibly can, without warning (which is
>suspicious considering the enormous lag/server issues their having).
>This thread is a statement about their customer service.

You seem to be implying they banned you to reduce server load. That's
absurd.


>the only thing worse then unjustice is people that bend over and
>accept unjustice while do nothing about it. At the least your now
>aware of how mindlessly anal this corporation is. Awareness is good.

This wasn't unjustice. Nor was it injustice. This was Blizzard
enforcing their rules, in an effort to provide a pleasant gaming
experience for the majority of their customers. Thanks for making me
aware that they're not afraid to thump idiots like you on the head
when you step out of line.


--
Exodus 22:18 can kiss my pagan ass
www.lokari.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
a95tv0dvrika1fh2o5ktdoh6kbsl4ump44@4ax.com...
> On 31 Jan 2005 10:03:29 -0800, patrick.barnes@standardregister.com scribed
> into the ether:
>
> >
> >Matt Frisch wrote:
> >> >On contractual matters? No way, Jose.
> >>
> >> Blizzard can suspend or cancel your account for any reason they want,
> >or no
> >> reason if they want.
> >>
> >> They can suspend your account if a GM woke up and stubbed his toe
> >that
> >> morning.
> >>
> >> Your recourse? NOTHING.
> >>
> >> So yes, Blizzard's is the only opinion which is even vaguely
> >important.
> >
> >Your recourse is to take them to civil court.
>
> The effort of proving damages by having Blizzard cancel your account would
> be...amusing...
>
> That is a pre-requisite of winning a court case, if you weren't aware.
>
> If your suit is to try and get your account reinstated, it would be
equally
> futile. Any business carries the right to refuse service to anyone for any
> reason.

Just like being black, for instance? I seem to remember something about that
a few decades ago - but some Americans seem to be prone to forgetfulness.
Too much television watching?

It used to be called civil rights, you might know.

In my country at least - that I regard as civilized - NO business can offer
a service to the general public and then refuse it to a specific person
unless there is a clear and defensible reason for it. It's ironic that we
learned it, in part just from Americans...

Probably there is a reason why Mr. Bush was elected, however. And if his
friend Mr. Berlusconi has it his way, Italy might follow suite too.

But I don't think he will. He shan't survive the next general election.

Alfredo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Alfredo Tutino" <powernews@libero.it> wrote in message
news:12RNd.21286$QG6.369716@twister2.libero.it...

>> If your suit is to try and get your account reinstated, it would be
>> equally
>> futile. Any business carries the right to refuse service to anyone for
>> any
>> reason.
>
> Just like being black, for instance? I seem to remember something about
> that
> a few decades ago - but some Americans seem to be prone to forgetfulness.

No, some people just have a concept of the fundamental underpinnings of
western law, even if the lawyers have long since forgotten. -Nobody- has a
right to access to the property of another. The law may encroach,
improperly, on property (ie, easements and rights of way), but that does not
make it right.

> Too much television watching?
>
> It used to be called civil rights, you might know.

Civil rights are misnamed. They aren't rights unless they are applied to
discrimination by the government.

> In my country at least - that I regard as civilized - NO business can
> offer
> a service to the general public and then refuse it to a specific person
> unless there is a clear and defensible reason for it. It's ironic that we
> learned it, in part just from Americans...

Then your country may not have proper regard for property. Which, in my
opinion, does not make for a civilized nation. Guess what, I discriminate
on who I allow into my house. You've got to be a friend of mine to get in.
I offer no clear and defensible reason. And, if you don't like it, I'll
give you a choice, .357 or 9mm.

> Probably there is a reason why Mr. Bush was elected, however. And if his
> friend Mr. Berlusconi has it his way, Italy might follow suite too.

Oh, you're one of those idiots. (and, for the record, I don't regard people
who oppose Bush to be idiots, only those who can't help but bash him at any
chance they get, whether it pertains to the topic at hand or not). And,
yes, there is a reason why Mr. Bush was elected. The majority of Americans
either liked his ideas better than the competitions, or hated them less.

> But I don't think he will. He shan't survive the next general election.

That's what we thought about Austrailia and America.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote in message
1107441397.058900.108200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> 42 wrote:
> > In article <1107378273.205959.280500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > patrick.barnes@standardregister.com says...
> >
> > Its also a foolish argument. By taking it to an extreme it becomes
> > ridiculous. Like many things: its wasn't ridiculous *until* you took
> it
> > to an extreme.
>
> *lol* Okay, I surrender. Half dozen people in this thread said that
> Blizzard is perfectly within their rights to suspend your account
> whenever they want for whatever reason they like, even though you are a
> paying customer. They're perfectly reasonable, but I'm a fool. I
> guess they repealed the consumer protection laws in this country while
> I wasn't looking.

I fear they repealed a lot of laws protecting our rights (or at least voided
them of most of their practical force) in many of our countries, lately. And
some of us where even looking, and some of them applauded.

As some of the posts here seem to show.

Alfredo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Alfredo Tutino" <powernews@libero.it> wrote in message
news:22RNd.21287$QG6.369371@twister2.libero.it...
>
> <patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote in message
> 1107441397.058900.108200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> 42 wrote:
>> > In article <1107378273.205959.280500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> > patrick.barnes@standardregister.com says...
>> >
>> > Its also a foolish argument. By taking it to an extreme it becomes
>> > ridiculous. Like many things: its wasn't ridiculous *until* you took
>> it
>> > to an extreme.
>>
>> *lol* Okay, I surrender. Half dozen people in this thread said that
>> Blizzard is perfectly within their rights to suspend your account
>> whenever they want for whatever reason they like, even though you are a
>> paying customer. They're perfectly reasonable, but I'm a fool. I
>> guess they repealed the consumer protection laws in this country while
>> I wasn't looking.
>
> I fear they repealed a lot of laws protecting our rights (or at least
> voided
> them of most of their practical force) in many of our countries, lately.
> And
> some of us where even looking, and some of them applauded.
>
> As some of the posts here seem to show.

They realized that some rights aren't rights.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:qui701p63l48hvc1mc17ggtrnhipsd3mdk@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:41:16 GMT, Tim Smith
> <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> scribed into the ether:
>
>>In article <6p8201pum9ke343uj1qkntmupb9sda7hio@4ax.com>, Matt Frisch
>>wrote:
>>> I've heard that the rights of 300 thousand people outweigh the rights of
>>> one person.
>>>
>>> Have you?
>>
>>Shouldn't this be in a Star Trek group?
>
> Democracy predates star trek by only about 2500 years...

And was determined to be an awful form of government by both the greeks and
the founding fathers.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 7 Feb 2005 13:12:05 -0800, spliffeh@hotmail.com (Dennis) wrote:


>This thread was asking you how you'd feel if you were banned without
>warning for using the word "bush" when referring to a plant, or the
>expression "eager beaver". Etc Etc.

Nobody was using the word "bush" when referring to a plant.
They were using the word "pussy" when referring to someone they wanted
to insult.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Carl Burke" <cburke@mitre.org> wrote in message
news:4207EDE2.60D500A2@mitre.org...
> Dennis wrote:
> ...
> > This thread was asking you how much censorship you like in your games
> > (note they already have a profanity filter, but still ban people who
> > swear or use other words they dont like, ie FAQ).
>
> They can't stop you from saying something like 'pussy', but the
> profanity filter is there for those who don't want to hear it.
> Your right to free speech stops at the other guy's ears; they have
> a right to choose not to hear it, and Blizzard has the right
> to choose not to carry it.
>
> In this case, you intentionally bypassed the profanity filter,
> by encoding the word using other glyphs. I'm surprised that the
> other person chose to petition, but they did and Blizzard backed
> them up. If you don't like the way Blizzard handled this, then you
> can stop giving them money. It sounds like you've done that, so huzzah.
> Bully for you!
>
> --

I agree with you on this - he got what he deserved.
It's not a matter of censorship, he used that stupid leet speak on a word
that may be interpreted either way and now he knows what the boundary is.

Nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned - he should have taken the
suspension like an adult instead of whining like a child.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 7 Feb 2005 13:12:05 -0800, spliffeh@hotmail.com (Dennis) scribed into
the ether:

>spliffeh@hotmail.com (Dennis) wrote in message news:<3e397d54.0501292214.3a00a017@posting.google.com>...
>
>> > >You guys gave me a 72 hour suspension without warning for using the
>> > >word pussy? And in leet speak no less? Is this a method of conserving
>> > >bandwidth???? Handing out ridiculous 3 day suspensions without warning,
>> > >for use of a word thats in the dictionary??? This does not improve
>> > >anyone's gaming experience, your just being anal (thats in the
>> > >dictionary too, am I allowed to use that word?).
>
>I am the original poster of this thread.... I had posted it in discust
>and not looked back since... A few weeks later I come back to see it
>has generated over 800 replies. WoW. My intent was not to create a
>flame war, just to post a story about Blizzard customer service.

No, it was to whine about being caught breaking the rules.

>Normally I would not pour gas on a fire, but I am posting a follow-up
>because I see that 90% of you HAVE MISSED THE POINT COMPLETELY...

No, we really didn't. Don't confuse the way a thread gets derailed onto a
sub-topic with us not understanding that you got caught breaking the rules
and were punished for it, and then decided to whine about it.


>This thread was asking you how much censorship you like in your games
>(note they already have a profanity filter, but still ban people who
>swear or use other words they dont like, ie FAQ).

There is no censorship in WoW.

>This thread was asking you how you'd feel if you were banned without
>warning for using the word "bush" when referring to a plant, or the
>expression "eager beaver". Etc Etc.

Which would be relevant, if that's what you did. But you called someone a
pussy, and not just that, but used l33tspeak to deliberately bypass the
filter.

>This thread was about Blizzard's policy of handing out 72 hour
>suspensions to anyone they possibly can,

They have never handed out such a suspension to me, and they "possibly
could". Therefore your premise is fundamentally flawed.

Oh, and ps: You are a moron.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:26:22 GMT, "Alfredo Tutino" <powernews@libero.it>
scribed into the ether:

>
><patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote in message
>1107441397.058900.108200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> 42 wrote:
>> > In article <1107378273.205959.280500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> > patrick.barnes@standardregister.com says...
>> >
>> > Its also a foolish argument. By taking it to an extreme it becomes
>> > ridiculous. Like many things: its wasn't ridiculous *until* you took
>> it
>> > to an extreme.
>>
>> *lol* Okay, I surrender. Half dozen people in this thread said that
>> Blizzard is perfectly within their rights to suspend your account
>> whenever they want for whatever reason they like, even though you are a
>> paying customer. They're perfectly reasonable, but I'm a fool. I
>> guess they repealed the consumer protection laws in this country while
>> I wasn't looking.
>
>I fear they repealed a lot of laws protecting our rights (or at least voided
>them of most of their practical force) in many of our countries, lately.

How does a right you never possessed get repealed?

> And
>some of us where even looking, and some of them applauded.

Some of us are just smarter than you.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Dennis" <spliffeh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e397d54.0502071312.746f3314@posting.google.com...
> spliffeh@hotmail.com (Dennis) wrote in message
news:<3e397d54.0501292214.3a00a017@posting.google.com>...
> This thread was NOT about the definition of the
> word pussy! It could have been any word ie: Bush, Beaver, Bush, FaQ,
> "Meet the Fokkers", Shiat, Anal....etc etc (all will get you banned,
> trust me I checked).

I'm sorry but your thread is still sofa king stupid, and a cupid stunt
of a thing to post here in the first place as it is a free king everquest
newsgroup, you off-topic barstool!

Cheers,
James (tongue superglued to cheek)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 21:33:18 -0500, "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com>
wrote:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:qui701p63l48hvc1mc17ggtrnhipsd3mdk@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:41:16 GMT, Tim Smith
>> <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> scribed into the ether:
>>
>>>In article <6p8201pum9ke343uj1qkntmupb9sda7hio@4ax.com>, Matt Frisch
>>>wrote:
>>>> I've heard that the rights of 300 thousand people outweigh the rights of
>>>> one person.
>>>>
>>>> Have you?
>>>
>>>Shouldn't this be in a Star Trek group?
>>
>> Democracy predates star trek by only about 2500 years...
>
>And was determined to be an awful form of government by both the greeks and
>the founding fathers.

As Winston Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government
except for all those others that have been tried."


Palindrome

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 7 Feb 2005 13:12:05 -0800, spliffeh@hotmail.com (Dennis) wrote:

>I am the original poster of this thread.... I had posted it in discust
>and not looked back since... A few weeks later I come back to see it
>has generated over 800 replies. WoW. My intent was not to create a
>flame war, just to post a story about Blizzard customer service.
>Normally I would not pour gas on a fire, but I am posting a follow-up
>because I see that 90% of you HAVE MISSED THE POINT COMPLETELY...
>which is disappointing... Its clear many of you did not read past the
>first page (lazy!). This thread was NOT about the definition of the
>word pussy! It could have been any word...

Actually, we know that. Despite your temper tantrum, we didn't care
that you had been banned - and still don't - and actually applauded
the fact you *had* actually been banned. Well done, Blizzard! Then
we went on to laugh at you for being such a pitiful whiner. What
happened *next* was that Tcells The Brainless tried to argue that the
word "pussy" (when used to mean a "coward") was completely distinct
and separate from the word "pussy" which means "female genitalia". We
all found that quite amusing, and we had some fun - hence the length
of the thread. We'd effectively forgotten all about you LONG ago,
because no-one cared about your situation in the first place.



Palindrome

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 01:10:30 -0500, "Charles Whitney" <cbillingsw@yahoo.com>
scribed into the ether:
>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:bn4j01pvs9621udop7a8o8es9fr2ih1bba@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 22:14:06 -0500, "Charles Whitney"
>> <cbillingsw@yahoo.com>
>> scribed into the ether:
>>
>>>
>>>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>>>news:840g015fvuk3vrm12vpsebh22ols19733u@4ax.com...

>> Goose/Gander. One of Alfredo's examples that he used to try and counter
>> Blizzard's policy was people having rights in your home.
>
>Forgive me if I'm missing this, but I see only one post in this subthread by
>Mr. Tutino, and he did nothing of the sort in that post. His only example
>was a business refusing to allow a black person to patronize its business.

Different thread. Someone screwed up in their followups, and it generated a
second thread.

>> The two are virtually identical...it is easier to enforce your will in
>> your
>> home than in a public place, but the right exists either way.
>
>No, they are absolutely not identical.

Which is why I didn't say that they were.

> If I run a restaurant the Department of Health can send someone over
>to make sure my kitchen's up to code so my patrons aren't going to get sick
>eating at my establishment.

Which has nothing to do with your right to refuse entry/service to whomever
you want (or rather, don't want).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Palindrome" <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f22i019m2u5pq4djo1da52l9uj0ioibp9n@4ax.com...
> On 7 Feb 2005 13:12:05 -0800, spliffeh@hotmail.com (Dennis) wrote:
>
> >I am the original poster of this thread.... I had posted it in discust
> >and not looked back since... A few weeks later I come back to see it
> >has generated over 800 replies. WoW. My intent was not to create a
> >flame war, just to post a story about Blizzard customer service.
> >Normally I would not pour gas on a fire, but I am posting a follow-up
> >because I see that 90% of you HAVE MISSED THE POINT COMPLETELY...
> >which is disappointing... Its clear many of you did not read past the
> >first page (lazy!). This thread was NOT about the definition of the
> >word pussy! It could have been any word...
>
> Actually, we know that. Despite your temper tantrum, we didn't care
> that you had been banned - and still don't - and actually applauded
> the fact you *had* actually been banned. Well done, Blizzard! Then
> we went on to laugh at you for being such a pitiful whiner. What
> happened *next* was that Tcells The Brainless tried to argue that the
> word "pussy" (when used to mean a "coward") was completely distinct
> and separate from the word "pussy" which means "female genitalia". We
> all found that quite amusing, and we had some fun - hence the length
> of the thread. We'd effectively forgotten all about you LONG ago,
> because no-one cared about your situation in the first place.
>

drone on. If they were the same, as you insist, then I would truely think
of you as female genitalia.

I just think of you as spineless and simpering - a pussy in other words.


Found your citation showing the two to be the same yet?

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <370a4gF548b7bU1@individual.net>, tcells1@yahoo.com says...
>
> "Palindrome" <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f22i019m2u5pq4djo1da52l9uj0ioibp9n@4ax.com...
> > On 7 Feb 2005 13:12:05 -0800, spliffeh@hotmail.com (Dennis) wrote:
> >
> > >I am the original poster of this thread.... I had posted it in discust
> > >and not looked back since... A few weeks later I come back to see it
> > >has generated over 800 replies. WoW. My intent was not to create a
> > >flame war, just to post a story about Blizzard customer service.
> > >Normally I would not pour gas on a fire, but I am posting a follow-up
> > >because I see that 90% of you HAVE MISSED THE POINT COMPLETELY...
> > >which is disappointing... Its clear many of you did not read past the
> > >first page (lazy!). This thread was NOT about the definition of the
> > >word pussy! It could have been any word...
> >
> > Actually, we know that. Despite your temper tantrum, we didn't care
> > that you had been banned - and still don't - and actually applauded
> > the fact you *had* actually been banned. Well done, Blizzard! Then
> > we went on to laugh at you for being such a pitiful whiner. What
> > happened *next* was that Tcells The Brainless tried to argue that the
> > word "pussy" (when used to mean a "coward") was completely distinct
> > and separate from the word "pussy" which means "female genitalia". We
> > all found that quite amusing, and we had some fun - hence the length
> > of the thread. We'd effectively forgotten all about you LONG ago,
> > because no-one cared about your situation in the first place.
> >
>
> drone on. If they were the same, as you insist, then I would truely think
> of you as female genitalia.

No. Only a dribbling slack jawed moron would think Palindrome means
that, particularly after this lengthy a discourse on the subject. You
take close minded to an art form.


The word 'fire' originally referred to that flaming stuff you often see
on chopped wood when you go camping.

The word fire when refered to a gun comes from act of setting fire to
the explosive. (from lighting a cannon fuse... to its modern equivalent
of pulling the trigger to create a spark).

The word fire when referred to terminating someone from employment is a
metaphor for the 'forcible ejection' that comes when firing a gun.

So when its time to fire someone do you think they are *really* advising
you that they will imminently be setting you aflame?

Of course not they just plan on terminating your employment. Hot red
flames are not even dancing in their subconsciousness. Yet that doesn't
change where the word came from.

And regardless of where it came from: if the verb fire happened to mean
'violent rape' in the current vernacular it would be extremely rude for
your boss to suggest he was going to 'fire' you, even if he means simply
to terminate your employment. He should have the common sense to use
words that aren't so ripe with vulgar double entendre.

> Found your citation showing the two to be the same yet?

When you take your blinders off let us know.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:35:05 +1100, "tcells" <tcells1@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>"Palindrome" <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:f22i019m2u5pq4djo1da52l9uj0ioibp9n@4ax.com...
>> On 7 Feb 2005 13:12:05 -0800, spliffeh@hotmail.com (Dennis) wrote:
>>
>> >I am the original poster of this thread.... I had posted it in discust
>> >and not looked back since... A few weeks later I come back to see it
>> >has generated over 800 replies. WoW. My intent was not to create a
>> >flame war, just to post a story about Blizzard customer service.
>> >Normally I would not pour gas on a fire, but I am posting a follow-up
>> >because I see that 90% of you HAVE MISSED THE POINT COMPLETELY...
>> >which is disappointing... Its clear many of you did not read past the
>> >first page (lazy!). This thread was NOT about the definition of the
>> >word pussy! It could have been any word...
>>
>> Actually, we know that. Despite your temper tantrum, we didn't care
>> that you had been banned - and still don't - and actually applauded
>> the fact you *had* actually been banned. Well done, Blizzard! Then
>> we went on to laugh at you for being such a pitiful whiner. What
>> happened *next* was that Tcells The Brainless tried to argue that the
>> word "pussy" (when used to mean a "coward") was completely distinct
>> and separate from the word "pussy" which means "female genitalia". We
>> all found that quite amusing, and we had some fun - hence the length
>> of the thread. We'd effectively forgotten all about you LONG ago,
>> because no-one cared about your situation in the first place.
>>
>
>drone on. If they were the same, as you insist, then I would truely think
>of you as female genitalia.
>
>I just think of you as spineless and simpering - a pussy in other words.
>
>
>Found your citation showing the two to be the same yet?

Many people have posted them, MANY times, all of which you have
ignored, you cretin By the way, have you worked out how to spell
simple words like "feral" yet? You being such a word expert and
all...


Palindrome

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c749be3a832d7989a23@shawnews...
> In article <370a4gF548b7bU1@individual.net>, tcells1@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > "Palindrome" <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:f22i019m2u5pq4djo1da52l9uj0ioibp9n@4ax.com...
> > > On 7 Feb 2005 13:12:05 -0800, spliffeh@hotmail.com (Dennis) wrote:
> > >
> > > >I am the original poster of this thread.... I had posted it in
discust
> > > >and not looked back since... A few weeks later I come back to see it
> > > >has generated over 800 replies. WoW. My intent was not to create a
> > > >flame war, just to post a story about Blizzard customer service.
> > > >Normally I would not pour gas on a fire, but I am posting a follow-up
> > > >because I see that 90% of you HAVE MISSED THE POINT COMPLETELY...
> > > >which is disappointing... Its clear many of you did not read past the
> > > >first page (lazy!). This thread was NOT about the definition of the
> > > >word pussy! It could have been any word...
> > >
> > > Actually, we know that. Despite your temper tantrum, we didn't care
> > > that you had been banned - and still don't - and actually applauded
> > > the fact you *had* actually been banned. Well done, Blizzard! Then
> > > we went on to laugh at you for being such a pitiful whiner. What
> > > happened *next* was that Tcells The Brainless tried to argue that the
> > > word "pussy" (when used to mean a "coward") was completely distinct
> > > and separate from the word "pussy" which means "female genitalia". We
> > > all found that quite amusing, and we had some fun - hence the length
> > > of the thread. We'd effectively forgotten all about you LONG ago,
> > > because no-one cared about your situation in the first place.
> > >
> >
> > drone on. If they were the same, as you insist, then I would truely
think
> > of you as female genitalia.
>
> No. Only a dribbling slack jawed moron would think Palindrome means
> that, particularly after this lengthy a discourse on the subject. You
> take close minded to an art form.
>

Thinking and maintaining that a word can only have one meaning is closed
minded.

snip some rubbish which shows fire can have more than one meaning, yet the
poster contends that "pussy" has one meaning.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:17:49 +1100, "tcells" <tcells1@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Thinking and maintaining that a word can only have one meaning is closed
>minded.
>
>snip some rubbish which shows fire can have more than one meaning, yet the
>poster contends that "pussy" has one meaning.

No, he doesn't. He contends that IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS USED,
it has one origin. In fact, he outright says "pussy" has multiple
meanings. The "coward" meaning is derived from the "vagina" meaning of
the word. How is that saying the word has one meaning? It's saying
that one meaning is DERIVED FROM another.

--
Dark Tyger

Sympathy for the retailer:
http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
"Door's to your left" -Gord
(I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

Protect free speech: http://stopfcc.com/

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <370g54F5990d6U1@individual.net>, tcells1@yahoo.com says...
>
> "42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c749be3a832d7989a23@shawnews...
> > In article <370a4gF548b7bU1@individual.net>, tcells1@yahoo.com says...
> > >
> > > "Palindrome" <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:f22i019m2u5pq4djo1da52l9uj0ioibp9n@4ax.com...
> > > > On 7 Feb 2005 13:12:05 -0800, spliffeh@hotmail.com (Dennis) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I am the original poster of this thread.... I had posted it in
> discust
> > > > >and not looked back since... A few weeks later I come back to see it
> > > > >has generated over 800 replies. WoW. My intent was not to create a
> > > > >flame war, just to post a story about Blizzard customer service.
> > > > >Normally I would not pour gas on a fire, but I am posting a follow-up
> > > > >because I see that 90% of you HAVE MISSED THE POINT COMPLETELY...
> > > > >which is disappointing... Its clear many of you did not read past the
> > > > >first page (lazy!). This thread was NOT about the definition of the
> > > > >word pussy! It could have been any word...
> > > >
> > > > Actually, we know that. Despite your temper tantrum, we didn't care
> > > > that you had been banned - and still don't - and actually applauded
> > > > the fact you *had* actually been banned. Well done, Blizzard! Then
> > > > we went on to laugh at you for being such a pitiful whiner. What
> > > > happened *next* was that Tcells The Brainless tried to argue that the
> > > > word "pussy" (when used to mean a "coward") was completely distinct
> > > > and separate from the word "pussy" which means "female genitalia". We
> > > > all found that quite amusing, and we had some fun - hence the length
> > > > of the thread. We'd effectively forgotten all about you LONG ago,
> > > > because no-one cared about your situation in the first place.
> > > >
> > >
> > > drone on. If they were the same, as you insist, then I would truely
> think
> > > of you as female genitalia.
> >
> > No. Only a dribbling slack jawed moron would think Palindrome means
> > that, particularly after this lengthy a discourse on the subject. You
> > take close minded to an art form.
> >
>
> Thinking and maintaining that a word can only have one meaning is closed
> minded.

> snip some rubbish which shows fire can have more than one meaning,

If it shows it has more than one meaning then it illustrates that I
don't maintain that words can only have one meaning. So why are you
accusing me of exactly that? (Hint: There is no good answer. You screwed
up.)

The fire analagy illustrates a completely accurate likeness to the
situation of you using 'coward' without 'truly thinking of [one] as
female genitalia'.

SEE!?

I *beleive* you aren't 'truly thinking of [one] as female genitalia.'
I'm even providing a 2nd example of the exact case *you* are claiming.

Of course, instead of siezing on it and saying... "Exactly..." you call
it rubbish, suggesting you are incapable of analytical thought.

Allow me to summarize the 'rubbish':

After *AGREEING* with you, via my fire metaphor, that the boss does not
mean 'setting fire to' (and thus by analagy *you* only meant coward and
not female genitalia) I went on to illustrate that even though all the
'boss' meant was 'terminating employment' the etymological root of
'setting fire to' persists as the source meaning.

The conclusion you are supposed to come up with from that is this:

If words and meanings derived from from pre-existing ones will carry
some of that baggage innuendo, even if that isn't the meaning you
intend.

If a large number of people beleive that it carries offensive baggage
then it does! Period.

EVEN IF **YOU** THINK THERE IS A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT DERIVES ALONG
MORE INNOCENT LINES.

Given that it's true origin is ultimately a matter of opinion and
guesswork, you will have to cope with the *fact* (amply demonstrated
here in this thread) that others, indeed *many* others, believe that it
carries the female genitalia innuendo. Deal with it.

Finally, EVEN if the etymology in actual fact does not bear any
offensiveness AT ALL. (Just as 'fire' to referring to 'terminated
employment' carries no offense.) But if a domimant meaning of a word,
even if just by mere chance of coincidence, in modern common usage *IS*
offensive then it is still tactless and offensive to use any meaning of
it... because of the inevitable double meaning.

Do you understand now?


> yet the
> poster contends that "pussy" has one meaning.

The poster contends no such thing, in fact, nobody does.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:17:49 +1100, "tcells" <tcells1@yahoo.com>
wrote:


>Thinking and maintaining that a word can only have one meaning is closed
>minded.

Which is exactly what your stance has been 😀 What an idiot you
are... YOU have been arguing that the word had only one meaning! WE
all KNOW that word has several meanings... but we also know they all
descend from the same root word. You are so poorly educated (as
witness the way you cannot spell basic words like fallacy, effeminate
and feral) that this last fact will forever be beyond your limited
understanding.



Palindrome

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

>What we do not seem to agree is simply this: a place of business is not a
>home - in my opinion. It is a place open to the public and that invites the
>public to come in (as a general rule - there might be exceptions). It is
>simply obvious that the rules cannot be the same.

Argue, rather, that the body politic has a vested interest in preventing
domestic ethnic strife. It presents a straightforward starting ground,
as it is the truth. Another truth would be that individuals have a
right to freely associate. Both are true, hard to argue with. These
two truths intersect,and then... well, something happens.

C//