So much for the UNCENSORED forum there Old Time Forum Regular 'eh?

-- TB2K spinoff selective CENSORING (is@here again.com), May 23, 2000

Answers

It was only a matter of time before Al-d got into the head of the OTFR. Once again, she has allowed her own standards to override the promise of an uncensored forum. Personally, I think Mr. Driscol needs to be under strict medical observation but that is no cause for censorship here. If we are to start censoring I vote to restrict the alcoholic ramblings of consumer, the sniveling of doomer losers like the sysman, and the mindless complaining of LL is Nutz. And certainly we need to reduce the overall volume of LL related bull.

Yeah, thats right lets clean this place up. After all, its for the children.

-- Willy (from@old.Philly), May 23, 2000.

No, no, no. That is not censoring, that is straightening the place up. It's kiind of like putting pages back in order that fell out of a book.

There words are stilll there. If they were not, THAT would be censoring.

-- (le@rn the .difference), May 23, 2000.

OTFR didn't censor a damned thing. He took the new thread and pasted it onto an old thread that was just the same-o, same-o thread with a little different twist. He wrote al.d a note underneath the post to explain. This is not censoring when your thread is stil there.

Posting religious beliefs is one thing, but starting a new thread, for every new thought is a bit much, no matter what the topic.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 23, 2000.

SO WHAT,S ,DA RULES?---HOW MANY POST,S PER DAY, WEEK, MONTH. i,m gonna chill for awhile & KEEP-COUNT. NO-CHEATING NOW,NO USING MY HANDLE. old tb2k--moderator, brrrrr that gives me chill,s. why do i get the feeling--this forum is not what it appears. but hey,if the majority say,s i,m messin-up, i will respect that. PLEASE=no false i.d s--voting for moderators. real e-mails please. ok. kids pick up the stones 1 ah 2 ah 3 ah toss.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), May 23, 2000.

But, but, but..sputter, sputter. Al-d craves the attention that only a new thread can generate. 80% of the new threads are pure crap anyway so who cares?

-- Just (let@it.flow), May 23, 2000.

Al:

Just my input here. I speak for no one else. I started two new threads yesterday on two separate topics. I thought of something else today that I'd like to discuss, but I don't want to start too many new threads, even though I haven't found a place to really fit in my thoughts for the third thread. Since you express the same thoughts on every thread in which you post, even those on a completely different topic, my vote would be for one thread a day.

I like the idea of consolidation, myself, and I certainly don't see censorship in consolidating two threads that were on the same topic. Old Regular can feel free to do that with ANYTHING I post. Get rid of that baggage, al. Old Regular isn't Diane, ya know. Your posts are kindof like a good song. The first time ya hear it ya don't know whether ya like it or not, but after a few more times ya decide ya like it. Then, after playing it OVER and OVER and OVER again, you put it aside for a while and save it for another time. If you don't take these breaks from playing the song, you end up HATING the song. It's not that the song was worthy of hate. It was a good song. It's just that humans can't tolerate hearing the same song too long.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 23, 2000.

I heard that ANITA, i respect your wisdom.i certainly don,t want to dihonor the LORD. i,m just a babe spiritually, forgive my exuberance. there is so much to GOD. but i,m taking your advise[wisdom]. i can sense your honest.GOD BLESS.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), May 23, 2000.

hey al-d,

Why don't you post some of your stuff on the LL threads. Especially the long ones.

Then LL will think everyone is trashing her, and when she gets to the bottom she will be saved!~

Do it! Do it! Do it!

-- LL is nutz! nutz! nutz! nutz! (nutz@nutz.nutz.nutz), May 23, 2000.

Al,

I agree with Anita 110% but would also like to add to it thoughts that have been forming in my own mind.

You seem like a good guy and I would think that you have opinions and things to say besides your "usual" topic.Not that theres anything wrong with your topic but there is such a thing as overkill and sometimes it works against what you hope to achieve as at some point in time you and your message get tuned out.

God never made us to be one dimensional,do you think Jesus was one dimensional? From how Iv'e read the Bible it would seem that Jesus expounded on many things and were not allways of a "religous" nature,he even said man cannot live on bread alone.

I would urge you to utilize the gift God gave you and articulate on many things and expose your secular side,join the cyber-community you profess to care about so much.

Just my 2".

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 23, 2000.

i hear yu capn.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), May 23, 2000.

As I recall, Mr. Driscol had some interesting things to say about raising dogs and growing garden crops during his run on the old TB2000 forum. However, these subjects resulted in little or no reaction so he went back to his tried and true religious chain- pulling. He really does not mind if we jump all over him but he hates to be ignored. Kind of like the ugly dog that gets cut but refuses to give your leg a rest. Best to just pat him on the head and say good boy.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), May 23, 2000.

Al, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I echo Anita's sentiments exactly. I'd also like to add that I don't read most of your posts because I don't know why you feel the way you do, I just read a lot of stuff about Jesus. If all I wanted to do is learn about Jesus, I would pick up a Bible! I might listen to your message if I knew WHY you say what you say. (I know it's because you love Jesus, but I've always wondered exactly WHY, WHAT happens in people's lives to bring that about, WHEN they knew Christianity was the way, WHO was influential in teaching them about it, and HOW does it affect their everyday life specifically. I KNOW you're a nice man and I've always smiled at your posts because at least you profess love and that's nice. I even yelled at people once for being mean to you (someone thought I was INVAR! lol!) But, sir, you really need to take capn's advice and be a little more worldly or you run the risk of even alienating the Christians.

I also just want to add that what I just saw was cool. People told you nicely what you were doing wrong, you listened, and I'm sure you will take their advice. This just proved to me there ARE valuable lessons to be learned in internet chatrooms!

-- (Ladylogic@...), May 23, 2000.

Laura,

Thanks for the substantiation,I really like it when you are so level headed,it becomes you.I hope ya know I'm not a troll,just a regular feller who calls'em as I sees'em.And yes this sometimes gets moi in shitloads of trouble: )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 24, 2000.

Yeah, I know, capn. Same goes with moi :o)

-- (Ladylogic@...), May 24, 2000.

Al--

I know this point has been made before but I'll make it again. Why do you insist on writing like an illiterate? Your poor spelling and poor punctuation is some type of a DiETeR act. Why? It's irritating and oddly patronizing.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 25, 2000.

If you'd just toe the doomer line and chant the meme, you would not be censored. Is that so hard to understand?

Repeat after me "The pollies were just lucky...the pollies were just lucky... the pollies were just lucky..."

Vindicated and Amused Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), May 25, 2000.

No, we doomers were lucky, too.

And Andy Ray is still ignored.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), May 31, 2000.