TSR Sharing your infomation!

[coconut]

  Solander, the only problem with you 'working' with Cedric, is that Cedric works with Anita, and Anita has a big mouth. FAIL

[Missbonbon]

This is true, but I wonder how many of us are in a position to diagnose someone. It's different to poke fun at someone being stupid, and say "Oh my gosh she's crazy!" But when it turns serious is when I turn my head away and ignore it. I agree that we need to offer a place where people can come and share their TSR woes, and tribulations, maybe even have a good laugh at their stupidity.

I'm not a doctor.  I might "diagnose" Atwa and/or Thomas, but that's my opinion.  Since when do we all have to be qualified doctors before we can say something about someone?  People play doctor with me all the time.  Since I've been out of work with the leg pain, total strangers have taken it upon themselves to diagnose me, suggest treatment, cluck in sympathy, tell me my doctor is crazy, that they know what's really wrong with me.  Do I say to them, 'I'm sorry, you are not allowed to suggest what is wrong with me, unless you can whip out your medical diploma."  Of course not.  Nor do I say to my doctor, "Sorry, but some guy I met while standing in line to buy aspirin said you were wrong, that what I really have is a torn ligiment, so I guess we'd better stop your treatment and start treating me for a torn ligiment instead.  On a meaner note, my next door neighbor says I'm faking it to get out of work.  So, does this mean that I should say, "You know what?  He says I'm faking it, so I guess I can go back to work!" 

We all can diagnose or speculate until the cows come home.  If Atwa is stupid enough to say, "Oh my god, they're saying I'm bugfuck crazy!  I better start drinking rum, because rum is the cure for bugfuck crazy!" then yeah, she is worse than anything we can diagnose and she needs very serious help.  Diagnosing people is a favorite way to pass time for many folks. But no one takes it seriously, at least in as a far as true treatment goes.   And anyone who does, deserves what they get. 

This is true. My point was basically more towards picking at people for their looks though.

I'm going to use the famous line "It's just a game." There is a difference between taking a stand, then making it personal. Once we make our vendetta against TSR personal, then we lose our message and cause. Then it will look like we just don't like Atwat and Thomass because we don't find them attractive.

Oh please.  The site is called PAYSITES must be destroyed, not "Thomas and Atwa are ugly fuckers."  If someone really thinks that the only reason why we dislike Thomas and Atwa is because we don't find them beautiful, then they're stupid.  The stupid are not my problem.
 

It may not be your problem. But I personally would not want to sink to their level to pick at someone's looks. If it's paysites must be destroyed then it's paysites must be destroyed. Not pick at their looks.

This part bothers me though. People can help their actions. They cannot help appearances. There is a huge difference in poking at someone for looks versus actions. If we poke at someone for their looks then we are no better than elementary school bullies. Yes mental illnesses can be shown within actions. To say "Look what she did! She's batshit crazy!" Is different than "Look at how ugly she is. I bet her shit looks better than her face." I can deal with the first option. Second option not so much.

Actually, some people can't help their actions either.  And if Atwa is truly mentally ill (which, I actually believe she is) then well, perhaps we are being mean by making fun of her but you know what? I don't come here to be nice.  None of her actions have been that of a person who is nice, so I don't feel particularly guilty about that. But, if we're going to say, "We cannot insult someone based on looks" then what about the millions of other insults and barbs?  If looks are off limit, then poking fun of Dot for not knowing how to spell different parts on a lamp should be wrong.  So should questioning why she loves making ugly lamps so much.  Maybe she's dyslexic and can't help spelling lamp parts incorrectly.  Better not take that chance.  So, insulting Dot's creations or how she presents them is off limits. 

And Izazu, maybe she really is mentally retarded.  Maybe we shouldn't make jokes about her dumb behavior in the TSR sharing information things Coconut posted. And while we're at it, you know, Thomas might not be able to control his greed, maybe he grew up in a poor family so his greed is really the cry of a desperate child, afraid of going hungry again.  So, maybe we should try to, you know, be understanding of his problem. 
 

No one said you needed to be nice. Hell I could care less if you decided to be bitchy for the rest of your lives. I do care if our mission is trivialized because people want to pick over something as petty as looks. I really think your over exaggerating your points because again, people can help how they act, not how they look. But wait some people can't help it right? So the fuck what. Usually those people are either A. On meds, B. Not on the internet. Yes there is exceptions, but there's no reason to go all crazy and exclude everything. Again why pick over something as trivial and petty as looks?

Besides wasn't it agreed upon somewhere around here that we will refrain from poking at someone's appearance? If it wasn't, then I'm mistaken, but I could have sworn I read it somewhere.

Really? Well, if that's the case, then I put forth that insulting someone's intelligence is something I can't live with.  After all, people can't help it if they're born with less intelligence than other people.  I mean, at least Atwa could lose some weight, get her hair cut and put on some make up if she was really worried about her looks.   But nothing will ever make poor Izazau any smarter.  So, if insulting anyone based on looks is out of the question, then why isn't insulting someone based on being stupid off limits too? 

If you feel that way then fine. I agree with Nouk that I won't participate in it mostly because that is not our mission.

EDIT: In reply to Jojoba. 

Again, if we're not allowed to mention looks, then we shouldn't be allowed to mention intelligence or lack thereof.   So, let's change the FAQ to reflect the new, kinder, more gentler PMBD.  The one that is completely PC. 

Well I stand by my reasons why I disagree. Mocking looks is not a neccessary point we should reach, and this was discussed, and decided, previously. It is not what this phorum is about and we can simply mock their actions instead, as those are pretty horrendous.

Agreed. In my perspective they do enough horrid acts for plenty of room to pick. I do agree that if she posts pictures of herself, then she should expect some picking. But we should be better than that. No I'm not saying be all fuzzy warm huggles and kisses, but we need to have a limit.

I was at work, and might have missed something. 

There is a big difference to me in these two statements:

1.  This person is ugly and should be vilified because of it.

2. This person went out of their way to make an idiot of themselves.  Look at them. 

They are both commenting on appearance.  However, 1 is not OK to me and 2 is. 

I think what is going on is that some people at one point were talking about regular pics of people (one person, fine) and remarking upon their looks.  I said something about that not being cool.  This pic with the veils and crap is a different story.  It is ridiculous looking.  I think that is what Darq is referring to and if I am wrong, I am sure she will correct me. 

I can understand this mentality, and I think this is where we are getting confused with each other. I could not be explaining myself correctly, but this is pretty much what I'm trying to say.

Darq, I think the agreement was somewhere within the Insim thread back when that drama was around.

[Scurvy Cat]

I gave up drinking Kook-Aid after i did some dyeing experiments with it.  Great colors on wool, but I'll have no desire to injest that much chemical dye myself.

I'll stick to Rum, thanks.  It's "natural'.

[De]

  Solander, the only problem with you 'working' with Cedric, is that Cedric works with Anita, and Anita has a big mouth. FAIL

I'm sorry, sometimes I am a little slow. Did I miss something?

[calalily]

  Solander, the only problem with you 'working' with Cedric, is that Cedric works with Anita, and Anita has a big mouth. FAIL

Many lols - and how unexpected....not. De - Cedric is Murano, and Solander is a paysite plant (quelle surprise!) to run the TSR agenda.  His problem is that while Murano can keep it quiet, he fatally told Atwat - and we all know how much she loves her privacy and can keep a secret.

[SnarkyShark]

I was quickly getting the sense he was only here to muddy the water. The only thing I couldn't figure out was why. Maybe it was to deflect attention away from Thomass' latest, and to date, most despicable act. You know, the one Solander really didn't want to discuss because he was much to preoccupied with protecting "poor" lil' Thomass' right to privacy. Tool. 

[calalily]

I was quickly getting the sense he was only here to muddy the water. The only thing I couldn't figure out was why. Maybe it was to deflect attention away from Thomass' latest, and to date, most despicable act. You know, the one Solander really didn't want to discuss because he was much to preoccupied with protecting "poor" lil' Thomass' right to privacy. Tool. 

TSR manipulation fail.  Problem is that most of us long time pirates remember that Solander was part of the "Save the Sims Community" initiative - you know - the one run by paysites banding together to get rid of pirates - also FAIL.  It requires a good deal more from him than just squealing he's neutral.  And totally effective in distracting everyone from the sick man and his dignity. 

[Paden]

Do we not give people a chance to change, though? Are they always branded as this or that even after going free? I'm just asking a simple question, is all. And no, I've not forgotten, I just am hoping that this is indeed not the case. What Thomass has tried to do hadn't slipped my mind, either. I still want the rotten son of a bitch to be given someone to deal with that is worse than him, but I don't think anyone like that has come into this world at this point in time.

[calalily]

Don't buy it - I don't care.  What brands him as a paysite mole is the fact that he's telling Murano he's got us handled - but by all means believe what coconut says about everything else, but not this.    You want pics, you get them. 

[Paden]

Us? Handled? That's funny. I do believe coconut but I do tend to believe that people can change. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. I'm one of those that can and do admit when wrong. I'd just missed that particular part of the blog, I guess. The day that anyone can say that they've got us handled is the day they mass sedate us, and I don't think that's gonna happen. I did not mean to cause any distress, btw, or disgust or eye rolling, sometimes I just put my foot wrong. I'm not perfect by a long shot. I don't know anyone that is. And if anyone tells you they are, they either have a messiah complex or they're trying to sell snake's milk.

[SoggyFox]

I must have missed something as well, but I do object to the idea that anyone has me 'handled'  Even my significant others are usually dumb enough to think they have me under control.

[calalily]

Us? Handled? That's funny.

Well he certainly has YOU arguing his own case.  So yes, I would say Solander has YOU handled.

[Paden]

The man has spoken of something that I believed was his own opinion and I uphold that, just as I uphold your right to speak your mind. Just because I disagree with something that you think or have an idea on, does not mark me as anyone's whipped puppy and if you think it does, you're fucking wrong. If he is going back and saying that we're locked up tight in a drum, yeah, I'm gonna wanna kick his ass from here to Mt. Saint Helen's. I looked at it from the point of view that maybe he didn't have all of the facts or was ignorant of something or just plain ass thought that a line was crossed and that the rest of us didn't see it that way, but wasn't gonna cut his balls off over something as intrinsic as a belief.

I have a mind of my own. I have beliefs of my own. If they differ from yours and you don't like it, that's no skin off of my ass. I have done what I think is right and that is stand up for someone's right to express what I thought was their honest opinion. If I got fooled, well hell, it won't be the first time and it won't be the last, but I am no one's toy to play with and no one's whipping boy. Ever.

[SnarkyShark]

Do we not give people a chance to change, though? Are they always branded as this or that even after going free? I'm just asking a simple question, is all. And no, I've not forgotten, I just am hoping that this is indeed not the case. What Thomass has tried to do hadn't slipped my mind, either. I still want the rotten son of a bitch to be given someone to deal with that is worse than him, but I don't think anyone like that has come into this world at this point in time.

Problem is, Paden, he came in here and right from the start began acting like the same old I'm-neutral-even-though-I-really-really-like-defending-paysites-Solander. He led us into a loooooooong, pointless, and as kenmtl so accurately pointed out, utterly boring conversation. Not to mention how he peppered his posts with insinuations about coconut's credibility. But I know how you feel about not wanting it to be the case. At one point, I was hoping that he was just an incredibly dense attention whore. Mainly because he was acting like an incredibly dense attention whore. Apparently that just isn't the case (for the most part) and he had an ulterior motive.

[Paden]

Sometimes, Snarky, the wish to believe it is true can be somewhat overpowering. I was also going on the free site owner cred, I guess. But I am damned if anyone is ever going to say that they have me wrapped around their little finger. Coconut has proven their honesty long before and I've no reason to doubt them. I guess my "give them a second chance before you shoot them on site" got the better of me. OOOPS, I fucked up. Better?