Lonewulf's website

[Enzo]

I like you fine LW, except for the endless thing with Bill.

[Candy]

Here's what I told Bill in a PM... I wrote, so I approve this post.

Well, I don't think you are stupid. I think you are misunderstood. You have an innocent quality to your posts. So many have ganged up against you for thinking differently or "outside the box". Anything you say now is attacked whether right or wrong. No one is willing to understand you. Sad, but true, I think.

I feel sorry for Bill.

Why can't a person have an alternative way of thinking? Why should he be constantly attacked for thinking outside of "mainstream"?

[Lonewulf]

EDIT: I just have to say it has nothing to do with how William "thinks", but moreso his behavior towards others, and his behavior towards those he disagrees with.

Yes, I am aggressive. Perhaps overly aggressive, especially when I get angry enough. However, William Thompson has a way of talking down to people, or making assumptions about people and/or their arguments; such as his assumption that people in the BAUT "believed in ETI", as opposed to "were merely skeptical about claims of nonexistance of ETI".

(Yeah, so I ended up talking about it. So sue me)

[Candy]

Candy, I don't think you get it either. If you want to discuss it, PM me.

I'm done talking about the matter.

No thanks.

I guess I don't understand the "BAUT banning process" to completely understand the banning process. Apparently, one must have an IQ over 150 to understand. I'm shy 15 points.

I never really understood Bill's banning. Wolverine didn't really clarify things for me, either. Oh, well.

[Lonewulf]

I edited my post, by the by. Just to let you know. I have a bad habit of posting something, and then re-thinking what I posted to post something else.

IQ level doesn't have anything to do with understanding why Thompson was banned.

But to be honest, I really don't care about him and the BAUT. I don't see why the BAUT is such a big deal anyways. Thompson has tendencies about him, that he shows in debate, flaming, or whatever, that piss me off. That's about what it all is about.

Just like Taks likes to pick out and attack hypocrisy, I like to pick out and attack hypocrisy and arrogance. I"m learning to not do that so much now that I realize it just leads to headaches and "WTFs?".

[Candy]

But to be honest, I really don't care about him and the BAUT. I don't see why the BAUT is such a big deal anyways. Thompson has tendencies about him, that he shows in debate, flaming, or whatever, that piss me off. That's about what it all is about.

Just like Taks likes to pick out and attack hypocrisy, I like to pick out and attack hypocrisy and arrogance. I"m learning to not do that so much now that I realize it just leads to headaches and "WTFs?".

See bold text above. Do you see what you are saying? It's about you! Not the poster, but you! Stop trying to make everyone conform to your needs, wants, or way of thinking. Listen to what others have to say once in awhile, you may be surprised at what you learn.

[Lonewulf]

I have talked to several people. They've all condemned both Thompson and you. I said what a lot of other people were thinking; I just had the guts (and the idiocy) to launch into it full-scale.

Yes, I said idiocy. I wasted a good amount of my time on this.

But while we're on the subject of condemning me... how about the Monique situation? Wasn't that just about you, and your opinion over what is right and what is wrong? How can you justify your attack? That doesn't necessarily make what I did right, I admit, but you seem to proclaim innocence while pointing your finger.

What makes you more justified than me?

I suspect Bill Thompson of having gone in as Dawn. This would make him comparable to Monique straight off. This is relying on my "gut feeling", and common sense. He also went in under another female name (though it is confirmed that Gelsana was, indeed, his wife Gelsana). That, right there, is enough to make my scenario comparable to yours.

What makes you more justified than me?

[Candy]

I have talked to several people. They've all condemned both Thompson and you. I said what a lot of other people were thinking; I just had the guts (and the idiocy) to launch into it full-scale.

Yes, I said idiocy. I wasted a good amount of my time on this.

But while we're on the subject of condemning me... how about the Monique situation? Wasn't that just about you, and your opinion over what is right and what is wrong? How can you justify your attack? That doesn't necessarily make what I did right, I admit, but you seem to proclaim innocence while pointing your finger.

What makes you more justified than me?

I suspect Bill Thompson of having gone in as Dawn. This would make him comparable to Monique straight off. This is relying on my "gut feeling", and common sense. He also went in under another female name (though it is confirmed that Gelsana was, indeed, his wife Gelsana). That, right there, is enough to make my scenario comparable to yours.

What makes you more justified than me?

First, you said "gut feeling"!

I feel justified.

"Monique" was not about me, it was about everyone exposed to such nonsense. I just had the guts to say it first. :wink:

Do you see how these experiences are similar, or do you want to keep fighting?

[Lonewulf]

First, you said "gut feeling"!

Because I was parodying you, for one.

I feel justified.

If you say so.

"Monique" was not about me, it was about everyone exposed to such nonsense. I just had the guts to say it first. :wink:

If you say so.

Do you see who these experiences are similar, or do you want to keep fighting?

I'm all fought out. I'm not fighting at all. I'm just telling you the truth.

The truth is, Candy... well, there's a lot to the truth. Most of it would be like chewing glass shards, which I don't want to go through again.

Either way, I'm not you. And I have far more reasons for doing what I did. For one, I did not like Thompson's arrogance. I did not like how he talked down to people. I did not like how he assumed that because people on the BAUT disagreed with them, they were all saturated with Star Trek or whatever, and none of them actually did any *real* science.

I have a lot of reasons. It's hard to settle on just one. Monique did not show this arrogance. She also did not send people's e-mail addresses to spammer sites to get their boxes spammed. Monique rarely talked down to people.

You went off gut feeling the entire way there. You went off gut feeling for her identity, for her motivations, and ... well... almost all of it. I went by what I saw, and the majority of what I saw in Thompson was a lot more than just "he didn't sound right".

Another thing: Pick your allies carefully. Throughout this whole debacle, you seemed to agree with and praise whoever agreed with you, for the sole sake of them agreeing with you. You risk allying yourself with people that hurt your argument more than help it; and people that reflect badly upon you.

For that matter, I have a hypothesis: that you are defending Bill Thompson seems to revolve around him hating me, more than you agreeing with him.

I could be wrong. Hell, I probably am. But that's what it's seemed like. You praised Thomas for attacking Monique. You praised Taks for attacking me. Now you're defending Bill Thompson.

But like I said, maybe I'm wrong.

[Candy]

Another thing: Pick your allies carefully. Throughout this whole debacle, you seemed to agree with and praise whoever agreed with you, for the sole sake of them agreeing with you. You risk allying yourself with people that hurt your argument more than help it; and people that reflect badly upon you.

Is your post a threat? Is it meant to scare me? I'd like to bring notice to the moderators Lonewulf's verbiage to me.

[Lonewulf]

Is your post a threat? Is it meant to scare me? I'd like to bring notice to the moderators Lonewulf's verbiage to me.

Er, no.

I was saying to pick your allies carefully, or you might look like a dumbass in siding with them for the sole purpose of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

No threats intended.

[Candy]

Is your post a threat? Is it meant to scare me? I'd like to bring notice to the moderators Lonewulf's verbiage to me.

Er, no.

I was saying to pick your allies carefully, or you might look like a dumbass in siding with them for the sole purpose of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

No threats intended.

I'm taking this as a threat to my person. You do not dictate to me who my "allies" are! You do not dictate anything when it comes to me. You do not tell me what I shall ever do when it comes to posting or posting style. Get a life, you man!

[Lonewulf]

I'm taking this as a threat to my person.

How, exactly?

You do not dictate to me who my "allies" are! You do not dictate anything when it comes to me. You do not tell me what I shall ever do when it comes to posting or posting style.

Since when was "giving advice" turned into "dictate"?

Get a life, you man!

I can't resist. Since when was I not alive? I do have a life, I'm living it.

You're overreacting, Candy.

[Candy]

Nice turn of events, but I'm not buying it. Lonewulf, you are the most arrogant, ignorant person I've ever seen on the Internet. Reading through you posts, you make absolutely no sense what-so-ever. Your mind changes from cold to hot in a matter of seconds. I don't even know how to respond to you sometimes wondering what "personality" will jump out at me. You truly are a case for science to research.

[Lonewulf]

Nice turn of events, but I'm not buying it. Lonewulf, you are the most arrogant, ignorant person I've ever seen on the Internet.

"Arrogant" I'll give you. "Ignorant", though, hardly so. I am ignorant in that I don't know everything, but I can admit when I reach the bounds of my knowledge.

Reading through you posts, you make absolutely no sense what-so-ever. Your mind changes from cold to hot in a matter of seconds.

Quite the contrary. My reasons and justifications haven't changed, I've just discussed some over another. Further, the thing that is changing mainly revolves around my mood; as I go throughout my day, I develop stress. I hop online onto the IRU, and I relieve some of my stress.

EDIT: That's not true. I don't "relieve" my stress, I just add onto it. But I do act out because of my stress.

Also, I might add, I told Lance I'd be easy on you and not spark up anything without due cause. I think I've done a decent job at that.

I don't even know how to respond to you sometimes wondering what "personality" will jump out at me. You truly are a case for science to research.

Perhaps.

Now, I have to ask you something.

What makes you think I care what you think?

I will counter bullshit when I see it, but really, I don't care how you perceive me. I don't care if you "buy it", as you say. I also don't care if you like me or not. I do not like you.

I do not want to see your breasts. Do not shove them at me. I do not want to hear your latest justification for attacking Monique. I will ignore such posts when I see them, and only respond if they are directed at me. I find it amusing how you praise people only if they agree with you, or you have a common enemy. And I will still see you around this forum, no doubt, unless one of us decides to leave.

You pointed your finger at me, and I defended myself. Also, I might add, you're at least as bad as I am. Everything you've done, your justification has been far less than everything I've done.

Your moods shift. I don't know if I ask you something politely, if you'll rip my head off and shout at me or not. Yet you claim that I'm of two minds about things.

[Candy]

I try to read what you write, but it is below my IQ level. Sorry. :?

[Lonewulf]

Quaint.

[Candy]

Quaint.

Again, Quaint has absolutely no point in the conversation, but yet you feel the need to post a word.

[Candy]

Case in point, if you can't articulate a meaningful post, don't say anything at all.

[Damien]

Just curious, Candy - why do you post heaps of consecutive posts instead of just posting it in one post?

[Lonewulf]

Eh, it's okay. You learn to just ignore Candy's multi-posting with her herself.

[umop ap!sdn]

I'd like to bring notice to the moderators Lonewulf's verbiage to me.

There is a "report" button (has an exclamation mark on it) on each post that you may use to ensure that we see it. In this case, however, Lonewulf's post does not appear to be any kind of threat.

[Lonewulf]

Glad that no one else saw that as a threat. I was confused for a second why she assumed I was making a threat, or "dictating" anything to her.

[Lance]

Another thing: Pick your allies carefully. Throughout this whole debacle, you seemed to agree with and praise whoever agreed with you, for the sole sake of them agreeing with you. You risk allying yourself with people that hurt your argument more than help it; and people that reflect badly upon you.

Is your post a threat? Is it meant to scare me? I'd like to bring notice to the moderators Lonewulf's verbiage to me.

So noted.

No threatening language detected.

Dismissed.

Carry on.

[Lance]

I'm taking this as a threat to my person.

Then there is something you are misinterpreting.

There is no threat.

Get over it.