Topic: I just got instantly perma-banned from the new TC for making a joke about Fuckalms.
Anonymous A started this discussion 10 years ago #52,691
It's great to have that place back up.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later[^] [v] #688,205
How many years do you think you'll rage over this?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #688,206
All bans were lifted. Except for Matts Permaban
Both bert and dave were put on short leash
https://tinychan.org/rules
So Anon which one are you?
Both bert and dave were put on short leash
https://tinychan.org/rules
So Anon which one are you?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #688,207
@previous (C)
> https://tinychan.org/rules
"Free speech is allowed within reason"
If you were to take the polemic skills of George Orwell, J.B Priestly, Anthony Burgess and Aldous Huxley, and get them to sum up in a single satirical sentence the idiocy of how Fuckalms runs things, they couldn't have improved upon that line.
"Free speech is allowed within reason", dear Christ that is priceless, that's worthy of the 1952 Stalin Prize for Irony.
> https://tinychan.org/rules
"Free speech is allowed within reason"
If you were to take the polemic skills of George Orwell, J.B Priestly, Anthony Burgess and Aldous Huxley, and get them to sum up in a single satirical sentence the idiocy of how Fuckalms runs things, they couldn't have improved upon that line.
"Free speech is allowed within reason", dear Christ that is priceless, that's worthy of the 1952 Stalin Prize for Irony.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #688,208
@previous (A)
I can see why she was inclined to ban you. Be thankful that no one minds much that you're a raving dickhole here and settle down.
I can see why she was inclined to ban you. Be thankful that no one minds much that you're a raving dickhole here and settle down.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 21 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #688,215
bhutan joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,249
Anonymous D replied with this 10 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,259
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,267
@688,215 (A)
are you some kind of foreigner where anger is shameful?
in the west, people like it and like to shout and punch people and they feel good about it
are you some kind of foreigner where anger is shameful?
in the west, people like it and like to shout and punch people and they feel good about it
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 25 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,268
@688,215 (A)
See @688,259 (D)
Then see @688,249 (bhutan)
Then realize @688,208 (D) called you a raving dickhole, and that's the truth.
See @688,259 (D)
Then see @688,249 (bhutan)
Then realize @688,208 (D) called you a raving dickhole, and that's the truth.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 36 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,275
@688,207 (A)
The major mistake people make is that they assume they’re entitled to free speech when it comes to participating in online communities. Free speech is a protected right?
Legal limitations on free speech (criminal behavior, slander/libel, copyright laws, Patriot Act, etc)
OP you're not stupid, just a little retarded, because unless you grew up in China or Russia? Free speech protection, does not extend to private homes or businesses. You think you have the right to say what you want to say in privately owned chan. You don’t have the right to enter a private home or business and expect to be allowed to say anything you want to. Owners have the right to ask you to leave.
Free speech is subject to the discretion of the owner of that private forum, just as they do in their own homes or business's.
You are free to start a chan of you own. To set the rules, so please stop crying and make a home-chan, of you own. Invite us so we can make your day with free speech. I want to see how long you will put up with us.
The major mistake people make is that they assume they’re entitled to free speech when it comes to participating in online communities. Free speech is a protected right?
Legal limitations on free speech (criminal behavior, slander/libel, copyright laws, Patriot Act, etc)
OP you're not stupid, just a little retarded, because unless you grew up in China or Russia? Free speech protection, does not extend to private homes or businesses. You think you have the right to say what you want to say in privately owned chan. You don’t have the right to enter a private home or business and expect to be allowed to say anything you want to. Owners have the right to ask you to leave.
Free speech is subject to the discretion of the owner of that private forum, just as they do in their own homes or business's.
You are free to start a chan of you own. To set the rules, so please stop crying and make a home-chan, of you own. Invite us so we can make your day with free speech. I want to see how long you will put up with us.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 55 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,307
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,353
@688,206 (C)> Fatt schtick will be removed and posters appearing to be Fatt Filler will be banned.
does that mean that fatfuck cockmouths are banned too?
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,380
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,382
@688,353 (J)
You have nothing to lose by trying it. They are not looking for an abundance of you know who shtick. In moderation you should be ok.
You have nothing to lose by trying it. They are not looking for an abundance of you know who shtick. In moderation you should be ok.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 11 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,460
@688,207 (A)
lol I was fucking around you dickhead, I haven't posted a single post over on the new Tinychan, and I don't intend to. I wanted to see what the reaction would be if I said I'd been banned.
And sure enough you spazzed out and started jizzing all over TC that somebody had been banned already. You even screen-capped stuff you sad prick.
Fuckalms, question for you buddy (I guess you'll be reading this) - are you seriously 27 years old?
lol I was fucking around you dickhead, I haven't posted a single post over on the new Tinychan, and I don't intend to. I wanted to see what the reaction would be if I said I'd been banned.
And sure enough you spazzed out and started jizzing all over TC that somebody had been banned already. You even screen-capped stuff you sad prick.
Fuckalms, question for you buddy (I guess you'll be reading this) - are you seriously 27 years old?
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,462
@previous (A)Dave. Is Vladimir Putin, aware that you escaped the mental institution you were locked up in?
It pleases me they have a rule for you.
kook !!2HY00OZrM joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,464
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 53 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,465
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 59 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,467
Anonymous L replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,468
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,469
@previous (L)
Well half the people who use chan sites are trolling assholes, it's why they exist, therefore how useful is it to assign a single name to half the userbase?
Well half the people who use chan sites are trolling assholes, it's why they exist, therefore how useful is it to assign a single name to half the userbase?
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 10 years ago, 13 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,474
The Council of Dereks !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 51 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,475
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 13 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,478
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,480
Dave is faggot
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,484
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 21 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,489
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 22 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,497
@688,484 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Buddy...I'm not going to joke around with you anymore, those days are over. I ask this with total sincerity, just to get a better understanding of you (you've always fascinated me, you know that, your total devotion to these silly chans is bizarre) - how is it possible at the age of 27 to have read so little as you have? I'm genuinely not looking to start an argument, I really want to know. At the last TC I wrote parodies of some of the most famous literature of our culture, from Shakespeare to Dante to Dickens, and each time you openly admitted you were clueless to it. How does this happen, did you not even go to school?
And about film - once I gave you a list of classic Western cinema and asked you which films you'd seen (there were movies by Scorsese, Coppola, Cimino, Sergio Leone, the Coen brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson) and you said none. How is this possible at 27???
And last but not least - how are still a virgin a 27? Is it because you don't feel comfortable with real life people, or is there some other reason?
I don't expect you to answer any of this, but it can't hurt to ask. I was actually flabbergasted to learn you are 27, I had no idea, I honestly thought you were maybe 13 or 14 or something from how culturally dim you are, that's why I kept laughing at the Doctor for his relationship with you. I'm sorry for it now.
Peace buddy.
Buddy...I'm not going to joke around with you anymore, those days are over. I ask this with total sincerity, just to get a better understanding of you (you've always fascinated me, you know that, your total devotion to these silly chans is bizarre) - how is it possible at the age of 27 to have read so little as you have? I'm genuinely not looking to start an argument, I really want to know. At the last TC I wrote parodies of some of the most famous literature of our culture, from Shakespeare to Dante to Dickens, and each time you openly admitted you were clueless to it. How does this happen, did you not even go to school?
And about film - once I gave you a list of classic Western cinema and asked you which films you'd seen (there were movies by Scorsese, Coppola, Cimino, Sergio Leone, the Coen brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson) and you said none. How is this possible at 27???
And last but not least - how are still a virgin a 27? Is it because you don't feel comfortable with real life people, or is there some other reason?
I don't expect you to answer any of this, but it can't hurt to ask. I was actually flabbergasted to learn you are 27, I had no idea, I honestly thought you were maybe 13 or 14 or something from how culturally dim you are, that's why I kept laughing at the Doctor for his relationship with you. I'm sorry for it now.
Peace buddy.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous O replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,498
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 54 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,499
Anonymous O replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,500
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,501
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,502
@688,497 (A)
Do you not feel sad, and creepy obsessively following someone you taught was 13yo boy for all these years? Not that I'd expect you to answer but it doesn't hurt to ask, right?
Do you not feel sad, and creepy obsessively following someone you taught was 13yo boy for all these years? Not that I'd expect you to answer but it doesn't hurt to ask, right?
more positive squeegee joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,503
@previous (B)
that's exactly what i thought. the fuck is wrong with OP that he thinks harassing a little kid is okay? what a creepy weirdo. i wonder what makes him think reading dusty books and movies from the 70s makes him anything more than culturally backwards? no one gives a fuck about your dickens or your scorsese. specifically him, anything he makes now just looks dated as fuck, like an old man in a 30 year old suit that would look better in new slacks and a button up
is this the same dude that always tries to point fingers at people for being pedo? sounds like projection to me if he thought he was stalking and grooming a young boy. what a sick fuck.
that's exactly what i thought. the fuck is wrong with OP that he thinks harassing a little kid is okay? what a creepy weirdo. i wonder what makes him think reading dusty books and movies from the 70s makes him anything more than culturally backwards? no one gives a fuck about your dickens or your scorsese. specifically him, anything he makes now just looks dated as fuck, like an old man in a 30 year old suit that would look better in new slacks and a button up
is this the same dude that always tries to point fingers at people for being pedo? sounds like projection to me if he thought he was stalking and grooming a young boy. what a sick fuck.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,504
@688,502 (B)
It's the Doctor I was "harassing", not Fuckalms. I'm not this 'dave' character he thinks I am.
It's the Doctor I was "harassing", not Fuckalms. I'm not this 'dave' character he thinks I am.
more positive squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,505
@previous (A)
changing your story now, huh? yeah, that's what lying creeps do i guess. why don't you quit stalking people to harass and play some overwatch and chill out.
changing your story now, huh? yeah, that's what lying creeps do i guess. why don't you quit stalking people to harass and play some overwatch and chill out.
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
kook !!2HY00OZrM replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,506
I wish that you could be cool and talk about weird movies with me instead of harassing fuckalms
Anonymous O replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,507
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,508
@previous (O)
Sshhh, calm yourself, you're taking this far too closely to heart.
@688,506 (kook !!2HY00OZrM)
I'd be happy to. My "harassing" days are over and I apologize to Fuckalms for being a dick.
Sshhh, calm yourself, you're taking this far too closely to heart.
@688,506 (kook !!2HY00OZrM)
I'd be happy to. My "harassing" days are over and I apologize to Fuckalms for being a dick.
Anonymous O replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,509
Dave is shit! SHIT!
@previous (A)
You'll be right back to tell your little lies again next week! You liar!
@previous (A)
You'll be right back to tell your little lies again next week! You liar!
more positive squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 56 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,510
@688,508 (A)
well go start a thread on old movies, i love old movies. but you'll have to explain why scorsese is still relevant and not an obsolete old man who's influence is in the past.
well go start a thread on old movies, i love old movies. but you'll have to explain why scorsese is still relevant and not an obsolete old man who's influence is in the past.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,511
@previous (more positive squeegee)
I think Scorsese still has one more masterpiece in him and I think it'll be his biopic of Dean Martin which has been in development for a decade. His 'problem' is that he has spent the last few years making 'easy' (for him) films like The Departed and the awful Wolf of Wall Street, trying to appear relevant by upping the violence and sex quotient in each film. That was never why he was great. He was great because he did amazing character studies of very disturbed and broken human beings, as in Raging Bull, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas.
I think Scorsese still has one more masterpiece in him and I think it'll be his biopic of Dean Martin which has been in development for a decade. His 'problem' is that he has spent the last few years making 'easy' (for him) films like The Departed and the awful Wolf of Wall Street, trying to appear relevant by upping the violence and sex quotient in each film. That was never why he was great. He was great because he did amazing character studies of very disturbed and broken human beings, as in Raging Bull, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas.
kook !!2HY00OZrM replied with this 10 years ago, 27 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,515
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,516
@previous (kook !!2HY00OZrM)
Shutter Island, yes. Not a bad film, but far below Scorsese's standards. Di Caprio is a very good actor but I wish Scorsese would stop working with him.
Shutter Island, yes. Not a bad film, but far below Scorsese's standards. Di Caprio is a very good actor but I wish Scorsese would stop working with him.
kook !!2HY00OZrM replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,517
@previous (A)
You liked it? Every minute of the score reverbearted in my head and wouldn't even allow me to pay attention to the film. It's was all dramatic cymbol crashes and violin strings no matter the action on the screen. I even like DiCaprio and I hated it.
I also didn't enjoy the constant from air camera pans of the mountainous sides of the island. We get it, you're isolated.
You liked it? Every minute of the score reverbearted in my head and wouldn't even allow me to pay attention to the film. It's was all dramatic cymbol crashes and violin strings no matter the action on the screen. I even like DiCaprio and I hated it.
I also didn't enjoy the constant from air camera pans of the mountainous sides of the island. We get it, you're isolated.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,519
@previous (kook !!2HY00OZrM)
It wasn't good, but it did have some effective imagery. If another director had made it I'd say it was a decent mystery film. But for Scorsese, it's an empty and pointless exercise in style, as was The Departed, Kundun, Gangs of New York (boring film but with an incredible performance by Day Lewis) and the absolutely terrible Wolf of Wall Street.
Scorsese is best when he is making plotless character studies, and he's worst when trying to tell an actual story. He said as much himself when he won the Oscar for The Departed (given to him as an apology in my opinion because he never won one in the 70s, 80s or 90s), he described it as the first film he'd ever made that had a plot.
It wasn't good, but it did have some effective imagery. If another director had made it I'd say it was a decent mystery film. But for Scorsese, it's an empty and pointless exercise in style, as was The Departed, Kundun, Gangs of New York (boring film but with an incredible performance by Day Lewis) and the absolutely terrible Wolf of Wall Street.
Scorsese is best when he is making plotless character studies, and he's worst when trying to tell an actual story. He said as much himself when he won the Oscar for The Departed (given to him as an apology in my opinion because he never won one in the 70s, 80s or 90s), he described it as the first film he'd ever made that had a plot.
kook !!2HY00OZrM replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #688,520
@previous (A)
I've seen none of those films, because they just didn't interest me. I almost watched Wolves of Wallstreet when I'd assumed that it was similar to American Psycho. But I changed my mind when I learned otherwise.
I've seen none of those films, because they just didn't interest me. I almost watched Wolves of Wallstreet when I'd assumed that it was similar to American Psycho. But I changed my mind when I learned otherwise.
Anonymous O replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #688,521
@688,519 (A)
So you can make very intelligent posts, yet you choose to use your time here to hound FuckAlms?
You sad, sad twat.
So you can make very intelligent posts, yet you choose to use your time here to hound FuckAlms?
You sad, sad twat.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #688,522
@previous (O)
Sshhh, go away Tim, you're obsessing over things which nobody cares about anymore. Move on with your life.
Sshhh, go away Tim, you're obsessing over things which nobody cares about anymore. Move on with your life.
Maddy !kCITGirlXc replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #688,523
bhutan replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #688,532
lost soul joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 32 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #688,537
Saw it here folks
Dave is done obsessing over Fuckalms because Fuckalms is not the child dave hoped for
Dave is done obsessing over Fuckalms because Fuckalms is not the child dave hoped for
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #688,538
@previous (lost soul)
Nope, 'dave' (not me, but fuck it) is done obsessing (I admit to this) over The Doctor, and therefore I am done dragging Fuckalms into it because I thought he was a kid and that's why Doc was so attached to him.
Anyway, I've apologised to Fuckalms for being a stupid dick to him and messing up his site with my bullshit, he can either accept it or tell me to fuck off, either option is fine by me.
Nope, 'dave' (not me, but fuck it) is done obsessing (I admit to this) over The Doctor, and therefore I am done dragging Fuckalms into it because I thought he was a kid and that's why Doc was so attached to him.
Anyway, I've apologised to Fuckalms for being a stupid dick to him and messing up his site with my bullshit, he can either accept it or tell me to fuck off, either option is fine by me.
Anonymous O replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #688,539
@688,537 (lost soul)
What the fuck? So after all of this Dave is the one who's a pedo?
@previous (A)
Yuck! Pedo! Pedo!
What the fuck? So after all of this Dave is the one who's a pedo?
@previous (A)
Yuck! Pedo! Pedo!
Maddy !kCITGirlXc replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #688,540
kook !!2HY00OZrM replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #688,542
lost soul replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #688,544
@688,538 (A)
My reply to that is:
> Saw it here folks
> Dave is done obsessing over Fuckalms because Fuckalms is not the child dave hoped for
My reply to that is:
> Saw it here folks
> Dave is done obsessing over Fuckalms because Fuckalms is not the child dave hoped for