Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.

Minichan

Topic: "Make another topic about this and you will be banned"

Anonymous A started this discussion 10 years ago #51,920

that is why I am PROUD to be an American...where free speech reigns over the lunacy of constipated tyrants..


just saying..

Syntax joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #673,832

Don't have a clue which or wot topic cause I am just getting started with replies. That said - How many times do I need say to you - Be careful pay attention to PM's and reflect on why you have been banned so many times.

Your choice but hey you almost never pay attention to my suggestions.

You no wot I cannot understand is - You no how to go to the store - Open wallet and buy the stuff for a epic 4 shot cocktail - Yet you cannot master wot is required to not end up banned.

Just saying with all respect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #673,836

@previous (Syntax)
post title is what r04r minichan's glorious leader said to sophie...just because for whatever reason she got her bloomers twisted about it..

I do not favor unjustified censorship..

r04r joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #673,838

You clearly do not understand what it means to have free speech. I'm sure fake_anon will show up to elaborate.

chili dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #673,839

free speech is protection from the government you dummy
private websites can censor you as much as they want

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 28 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #673,840

Why do you care about a Sophie thread, OP?

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #673,842

Hey, so just FYI being banned from a private internet forum is NOT abridging your free speech. Minichan is not a government actor. You have exactly as many "rights" as the owners of the site feel like giving you. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. No seriously you should go somewhere else. Or drink yourself to death. No one would care. Bye!

(Edited 17 seconds later.)

Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 49 seconds later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #673,843

@673,840 (E)

I thought this was a Christopher thread. Probably because, for some gross reason, he wants to have coitus with Christopher.

Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #673,844

@673,842 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Or drink yourself to death.
Do you recommend Domestos for that?

Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #673,845

@673,836 (A)
> I do not favor unjustified censorship..

So are you complaining about wot a mod said to Autphag? Autphag who spams the board with the same topics over n over n over n over again.

Is that your complaint? Look I no your hard up for female companionship but trust me - Autphag turning in2 Sophie - Your poll is never ever going to fit inside Autphags Urethra. And I doubt you want to play in Autphags sewage pipe.

Are you really defending free speech based on Autphags need to post Word Salad Spam?

Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #673,846

@673,842 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That sounds downright... libertarian.

Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #673,847

@673,845 (Syntax)
I want to revive Bertchan and turn it into Asperchan.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 56 seconds later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #673,848

@673,846 (Metæ)
I am very libertarian on free speech thanks.
@673,844 (E)
I recommend not using overdone memes.

Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #673,853

Bert is only defending Sophie for the mere reason of wanting Sophie to stick his penis in his sewage system.

Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #673,857

@previous (I)
Drunks usually fail to get erect because of deteriorating arteries. bert probably cannot use his stick and stones for much anymore.

Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #673,861

AH I C now - Worked my way down to first locked topic and then this

http://minichan.org/topic/51917
r04r joined in and replied with this 4 hours ago, 25 seconds later
No one gives a fuck about you or any of your delusions. Go away. Make another topic about this and you will be banned.


bert I must say - Defense of Autphag as free speech?

Leaves me laffin. I am also betting you do not read the word salad. Hey man thanks for the laffs

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 16 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #673,873

@OP
As any true patriot can tell you, the First Ammendment only protects free speech from the USAgovernment. It does not apply to corporations, private individuals, or the owners of obscure backwater internet fora. Please tell the fora why you decided to chicken out of Desert Storm.

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo double-posted this 10 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #673,874

@673,853 (I)
Is Mr. Gillon's sewage system re: 15 minute dryve from thee?

FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 55 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #673,917

@673,838 (r04r)
It seems like most people who invoke it have that same problem.

Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #673,965

@673,842 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)

There is a difference between someone infringing on your rights to free speech and someone discouraging free speech.

Koffing replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #673,969

KOFFING!

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #673,983

@673,965 (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
We are not discouraging free speech. We are discouraging bert from drunkenly shitting up someone else's website.

RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #673,984

@673,965 (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
Do you ever think that, maybe, defending Bert and Autphag does not reflect very well on you? Just a thought.

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #673,987

@673,965 (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
What if someone were to, say, "accidentally" infringe on your rights?

Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #673,988

@673,984 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)

What are you supposed to get here on minichan when you do things that make you look good? Some sort of fake niceness that turns into hate as soon you say something others don't agree with? Like when someone suddenly decides to brand you sexist?

Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #673,990

@673,983 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
berts only safe option and I am serious. He needs to stop using his phone for chan posts. He needs to go back to a desktop or laptop or anything that he can interface to something as simple as BAIID

It should be simple to install Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device, to prevent computer use when drunk. $129 and there may be cheaper devices.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/i5-Wireless-Alcolock-breathalyzer-ignition-interlock-Life-Safer-Lifesafer-/351722666874?hash=item51e44dfb7a:g:aGsAAOSwZd1VV735

Syntax double-posted this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #673,991

@673,984 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
I defend bert. Just not when he spams any site when drunk as fuck. Spam is spam. Nor do I defend him when he drinks and creeps on women on a site.

bert has value - lots of value - just needs help.

Anonymous G replied with this 10 years ago, 41 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #673,993

@673,988 (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)

RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #673,994

@673,988 (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
I am just trying to say that constantly leaping to the defence of a serial rape threatener and the guy who must insult everybody with word salads might not endear you to others.

Also, I am assuming that you stil have warped ideas about gender. Just because I do not constantly bring it up does not mean I no longer think that. Thanks.

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 43 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #673,995

@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Don't forget that he is also a pedophile.

RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #673,998

@673,991 (Syntax)
Ha. So, what you're saying is that there's never an occasion where you defend him?

But sure, I don't think he's the devil or anything. Maybe he could be an okay guy if he got some help. But I doubt that Minichan can provide said help, so him being here and shitposting doesn't really help anyone.

Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 10 years ago, 32 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #673,999

@673,994 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
@673,995 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)

Pretty much the same person.

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 55 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,004

@previous (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
People whom are not pedophiles don't stalk small children. Thanks.

RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,006

@673,999 (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
What is so similar about us? I am not sure that criticising you makes us "the same person".

Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 13 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,007

@673,995 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
berts not a pedophile. He only hit on Tryptich after she turned 18. Based on my memory and I could be in error. In 15+ years of forum use with bert he usually hits on mature woman. Often his age or older. The one he had the most hots for who goes by Sandy and she sure was HOT - and owned a set of forums - She was only 8 years younger than bert - She is now 35-37

Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,011

@674,006 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)

You are the same in that i don't really care enough to censor what I have to say in order to be on your worthless good side. Thanks.

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 11 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,012

@674,007 (Syntax)
We're talking about Denmark Guy, not your assfriend Bert. Don't butt into other people's conversations.

RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 56 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,013

@674,011 (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
Wow, you're right. That does make us the same. Literally the same guy.

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,016

@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
You should consider joining the Big Daddies Derek.

Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,019

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)

Told you.

Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 23 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,020

@674,016 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
All Big Daddy Derek's are cock sucking Paedophiles.

Wheezing replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,023

weezing...

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 34 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,025

@674,020 (O)
Oh, look! Another worthless angry anae! Reported for anti-Derek sentiment.

RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,030

@674,016 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
I am, in fact, an ex-member!

Half of the time you got mad at "Catherine" for doing the Council of Dereks schtick, it was I, KL!

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,121

@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
I don't seem to recall "getting mad" at anyone whom did that. In fact, the other half of the "Council of Dereks" shtick may very well have been myself!

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,173

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Contrary to popular opinion, it was, in fact, myself.

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,318

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
I concur. Thanks

Lt. Judy Hopps joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,322

@673,988 (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
You didn't suddenly start being called a misogynist
People just call you out because you consistently prove yourself to be pretty sexist

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #674,326

@previous (Lt. Judy Hopps)
Objection, conjecture.

Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 21 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,835

@673,873 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Yes, the US Constitution does not extend to private businesses, entities or individuals. That's why retailers can refuse to hire Muslims, public bars can refuse to serve women, and restaurants can put up signs reading "No Blacks Allowed". Thanks.

RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,838

@previous (R)
Thanks.

Anti !M6R0eWkIpk joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,844

@OP

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,846

@674,835 (R)
Where, amongst the ammendments to the USAmerican constitution, does it say that?

beckyphone joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,874

@674,835 (R)

The Thirteenth Amendment is the only exception. It outlawed slavery and its 'badges and incidents' and authorized the passage of sweeping laws to enforce it, which have included laws banning some racial discrimination by private citizens, generally in labor, housing, and commerce.

The guy you are replying to is correct, the first amendment is limited to government actors.

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Anonymous R replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,877

@674,846 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
@previous (beckyphone)
Nothing I said was untrue.

beckyphone replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,879

@previous (R)

You are a retard.

Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,880

@674,874 (beckyphone)
It's kind of interesting to think the Constitution had to be amended to accomplish this. As I was reading that I thought "why did they go to all the trouble? why not just have the Supreme Court rule that slavery was unconstitutional?" because that's how it would be handled today I think.

(Edited 26 seconds later.)

Anonymous R replied with this 10 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,887

@674,879 (beckyphone)
Why did this bother you so much?

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,888

@674,877 (R)
Please cite the relevant USAmmendments. Thanks.

Anonymous R replied with this 10 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,901

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Please be more specific. Are you asking where it says that the Constitution does not extend to private businesses, entities or individuals, or are you asking which amendment protects free speech?

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,905

@previous (R)
Please explain to the fora which parts of the USAconstitution you feel prevent businesses from refuseing to hire Muslims, refusing to serve women, and putting up signs reading "No Blacks Allowed". Thanks.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,957

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Amendment number 14!

FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,960

@674,874 (beckyphone)
You mean, it's perfectly legal for ISPs to play favorites and censor web content they deem to be rude?

fuuuuuuuuuuuck

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,961

@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Not sure of the caselaw, but I can't think of a constitutional reason that wouldn't be allowed. Maybe some attenuated first amendment argument could be made? Idk. That is much more of a policy issue. It would be bad to allow it, but the Constitution allows for bad policy.

Anonymous N replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,965

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
What does the Minichan Constitution say on the matter, then?

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #674,967

@previous (N)
The minichan Constitution is whatever I want it to be, so it says it is not allowed.

(Edited 7 seconds later.)

Anonymous R replied with this 10 years ago, 8 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #675,414

@674,905 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
You must have misread my post. I didn't say that. I said the exact opposite. Thanks, thanks.

Anonymous R double-posted this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #675,421

@674,879 (beckyphone)
Beckyphone: why did you find this comment so annoying? It basically agrees with everything you said.

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #675,437

@675,414 (R)
You must have misread my first post in this topic, in which I mentioned only the First USAmmendment. Thanks.

Anonymous R replied with this 10 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #675,444

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
And I agreed with you. Where's the controversy?

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #675,457

@previous (R)
Why are you being so argumentative? Settle down.

Anonymous R replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #675,461

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Why are you arguing when I'm agreeing with you?

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #675,466

@previous (R)
I asked you to settle down. Thanks.

Anonymous R replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #675,475

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Please answer my question. Thanks.

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #675,482

@previous (R)
I reject the premise of your question. Now settle down.

Anonymous R replied with this 10 years ago, 20 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #675,526

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Why do you reject the premise? Thanks.

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #675,538

@previous (R)
You are being argumentative again. Why are you fussing?

Anonymous R replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #675,551

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Please explain why you rejected the premise. Thanks. Thanks, thanks.

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #675,558

@previous (R)
Go to bed, Dave. Sleep it off.

Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #675,702

PENIS PENIS PENIS
:

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting.