Illuminati-R-Us

by **nicozine** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:51 pm

Lonewulf wrote:
nicozine wrote:im glad im not the only one who thinks this. when somebody gets on your website and calls poeple names and makes nuty acussations evry once in a while and then complanes when they get banned you strat to wonder if they relly are crazy.

Are you talking about Bill Thompson or Candy here?

Oh, right...

i think i maent Candy. you are a bad person i think. :wink:

Writing.com Account · by **Lonewulf** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:14 pm

nicozine wrote:i think i maent Candy. you are a bad person i think. :wink:

Hey, watch it. Cats are tasty. :twisted:

by **Bill_Thompson** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:58 pm

I have heard three different people say that BAUT is no longer interesting any longer. Maybe it will rot like a bad apple from the inside out.

by **Bill_Thompson** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:59 pm

Cyndi wrote:
Bill_Thompson wrote:
RAF wrote:
I still think Bill is the mastermind to Lance and Dawn and Monique.

No point really...just a few "stray" facts...

Wait a second. So Candy thinks that I invented Lance and Dawn and Monique? Fascinating. I think I shold be honored that she thinks I am so clever to pull that off.

Yes Bill -
[sigh] you should be honored that someone thinks that...
But then if you consider the 'original' source of the comment (which came from Candy if you weren't following along).
How honored can anyone be from such a silly and ridiculous comment?

However -
You ALL have it WRONG!

For it is I, who am the 'real' Mastermind behind your beloved administrator Lance.

Silly people!

( : )

I think Cyndi is the mastermind and all four of us are cyborgs.

by **Dragon Star** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:00 pm

Bill_Thompson wrote:I have heard three different people say that BAUT is no longer interesting any longer. Maybe it will rot like a bad apple from the inside out.

OMG shut up about BAUT already, THE HORSE IS DEAD STOP BEATING IT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

by **Enzo** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:00 pm

This sort of exchange is depressing and not necessary. I don't care who is involved, Bill and LW, LW and Candy, Lance and Candy, etc. Back and forth sniping is not very interesting to read. it certainly isn't uplifting, nor funny. When it was just BT and LW exchanging barbs for pages on end, I could skip past it. This was everyone piling on, and even less desirable. It seems to be a growing trend.

Writing.com Account · by **Lonewulf** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:01 pm

Bill_Thompson wrote:I have heard three different people say that BAUT is no longer interesting any longer. Maybe it will rot like a bad apple from the inside out.

That's funny. I've heard three different people say that bombing many people is a good idea. Timothy McVeigh, Osama Bin Laden, and <insert any random bomber's name here>.

I guess that means that bombing innocents is justified.

Or maybe there's a reason Argumentum Ad Populum doesn't work. And how you seem to be mentioning 3 people out of 11,000+ on the BAUT.

Oh, and I also assume that one of those three is Candy. She's not a very reputable witness, and her expert opinion isn't very expert ;)

by **Lance** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:08 pm

Enzo wrote:This sort of exchange is depressing and not necessary. I don't care who is involved, Bill and LW, LW and Candy, Lance and Candy, etc. Back and forth sniping is not very interesting to read. it certainly isn't uplifting, nor funny. When it was just BT and LW exchanging barbs for pages on end, I could skip past it. This was everyone piling on, and even less desirable. It seems to be a growing trend.

Yeah, this probably needs to be in The Enraged Ones forum...

So let it be done.

Writing.com Account · by **Lonewulf** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:23 pm

Enzo wrote:This sort of exchange is depressing and not necessary. I don't care who is involved, Bill and LW, LW and Candy, Lance and Candy, etc. Back and forth sniping is not very interesting to read. it certainly isn't uplifting, nor funny. When it was just BT and LW exchanging barbs for pages on end, I could skip past it. This was everyone piling on, and even less desirable. It seems to be a growing trend.

What, you thought this would be a thread devoid of flames? It's all about Candy talking about how horrible the BAUT is again, for not allowing her to sneak back as a sock puppet.

by **Enzo** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:32 am

I go through my day without flames, then I come here, and sport seems to be looking for excuses to pound on someone, and who cares who. I can't get worked up about any of this. If someone was kicked off the BAUT and didn't like it, then they have some small sympathy from me, at least for a minute. But page after page of it is depressing to read regardless of which side it is on.

AS far as I am concerned, if Candy, or You, or Bill wants to rant and rave about getting kicked off there, I don't see why I ought to invest a bunch of emotional energy to take any of you to task over it. Say your piece, fine by me. Flame wars over it? No point.

by **Bill_Thompson** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 am

Enzo wrote:I go through my day without flames, then I come here...

This must be the logic behind the movie Fight Club.

In my life with the people I work with we (engineers, programmers and scientists) are respectful of each other even when we think someone is wrong.

Because of this, I think noone who frequent's this forum would make a good engineer, programmer or scientist. This includes me. The longer I am here the more I am soiled.

Writing.com Account · by **Lonewulf** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:23 am

Bill_Thompson wrote:In my life with the people I work with we (engineers, programmers and scientists) are respectful of each other even when we think someone is wrong.

Your mistake is assuming that people flame you because they think you're wrong, and not because you're an arrogant asshole that talks down to others constantly.

Tit for tat, reciprocity.

by **Lance** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:34 pm

Lonewulf wrote:
Bill_Thompson wrote:In my life with the people I work with we (engineers, programmers and scientists) are respectful of each other even when we think someone is wrong.
Your mistake is assuming that people flame you because they think you're wrong, and not because you're an arrogant asshole that talks down to others constantly.

Yes, Bill, Lonewulf is right. We are all quite used to you being wrong and just take it in stride. As a matter of fact, I doubt anyone takes anything you say very seriously anymore. Your real problem is the fervor with which you proclaim your positions. You hand wave and bible thump some worn out and stupid argument about whatever, then expect everyone to hail your brilliance for doing it.

Bill_Thompson wrote:The longer I am here the more I am soiled.

And we all really enjoy watching you hanging around soiling yourself.

Writing.com Account · by **Lonewulf** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:40 pm

Bill Deny the Anti-Science guy... that's neat. Nice one, Lance.

by **Monique** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:48 pm

Bill_Thompson wrote:
RAF wrote:
I still think Bill is the mastermind to Lance and Dawn and Monique.

No point really...just a few "stray" facts...

Wait a second. So Candy thinks that I invented Lance and Dawn and Monique? Fascinating. I think I shold be honored that she thinks I am so clever to pull that off.

No one invent Monique!! [-X

by **Мастер** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:42 pm

Monique wrote:No one invent Monique!!

Welcome Monique! I hope you don't mind if I ask you some questions about complex analysis from time to time...

by **Monique** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:50 pm

Khrushchev's Other Shoe wrote:
Monique wrote:No one invent Monique!!

Welcome Monique! I hope you don't mind if I ask you some questions about complex analysis from time to time...

You may always ask... :wink:

by **SciFi Chick** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:55 pm

Monique wrote:
Bill_Thompson wrote:
RAF wrote:
I still think Bill is the mastermind to Lance and Dawn and Monique.

No point really...just a few "stray" facts...

Wait a second. So Candy thinks that I invented Lance and Dawn and Monique? Fascinating. I think I shold be honored that she thinks I am so clever to pull that off.

No one invent Monique!!

That's okay. For awhile, she thought my husband was you. :roll:

I'm sure if I had been posting here at the time, she would have accused me as well.

In any case, welcome - and I hope you can keep track of posting on three boards at the same time. ;)

by **Dragon Star** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:18 pm

SciFi Chick wrote:That's okay. For awhile, she thought my husband was you.

Oh God.

by **taks** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:03 am

hey now... i AM an engineer, programmer and pseudo-scientist rolled up into one. i take offense. if i had a virtual glove, i would slap bill's avatar.

taks

PS: uh, pseudo-scientist because we engineers typically don't mind 10% error... :)

by **Lance** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:15 am

taks wrote:...if i had a virtual glove...

by **neocracker** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:35 am

taks wrote:hey now... i AM an engineer, programmer and pseudo-scientist rolled up into one. i take offense. if i had a virtual glove, i would slap bill's avatar.

taks

PS: uh, pseudo-scientist because we engineers typically don't mind 10% error... :)

10% error? No wonder the holes don't line up.

Writing.com Account · by **Lonewulf** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:46 am

That's okay. I'm a philosopher. It's not 10% error that really counts, but 10% correctness.

by **taks** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:32 pm

Lance wrote:
taks wrote:...if i had a virtual glove...

waaaaay too sexy for face slapping. it needs to be leather, not the kinky kind, with some spikes or something. oh wait, that is the kinky kind... hmmm

taks

by **Candy** » Tue May 02, 2006 7:52 am

Illuminati-R-Us

GOODBYE BAUT!

Who is online