Topic: The case for unbanning Matt (not written by Matt)
Anonymous A started this discussion 10 years ago#55,274
Here's the thing - Matt is in many ways an extraordinarily weird person. He seems sociopathically detached from any mockery of his closest dead family members, he is shamelessly irresponsible, he lies about almost every aspect of his life, and he has a very troubled, dark and sickened sexuality, which manifests as a fixation on bodily waste and underage girls.
BUT...he is also undeniably articulate and quick-witted. It's the frustrating thing about him, he isn't stupid (many here are). He's perceptive and sometimes even genuinely funny. Why he chooses to do what he does with his life is anyone's guess, he could be so much more.
Cut him a deal whereby certain themes are out of bounds for him, but if he avoids those themes (body waste, underage genitalia, etc) then he can post here. Don't ban him just because he gets under Syntax's skin.
No, he's a good one, but he's not a 'superb' one. He does rile up the 'right' people, I'll give him that much (he's effortlessly turned Tinychan into his own personal shrine for example). But he's not a 'superb' troll because he also annoys people who would be on his side if he'd only stop posting stupid sick shit about, well, shit and child 'vulvas'.
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Meowth replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^][v]#715,580
@715,577 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Reported for being a retard.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 39 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^][v]#715,598
@OP > he is ... undeniably articulate and quick-witted.
Links, please.
> He's perceptive and sometimes even genuinely funny.
I've seen absolutely no justification whatsoever for either claim.
> Matt is a fucking college professor.
Which college is he currently working for?
> he's effortlessly turned Tinychan into his own personal shrine
Do you also consider his ED article to be a "personal shrine"? As a general rule, shrines are not employed for mockery, contempt and ridicule.
@715,578 (A)
He is neither "superb" nor "good" in any sense of the word. He is an unemployed, deadbeat pedophile who publicly requested CP from an underaged girl.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#715,601
When Matt is banned, syntax should be banned as well
Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#715,603
@previous (F)
No, he should not. Syntax has broken no rules. Fatfuck, on the other hand, consistently violates board policy with virtually every post he makes.
Anonymous F replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#715,607
@previous (E)
Syntax claims he has mods doing his bidding though. What Matt was posting was deleted and what he posted in reply was intentionally left up for hours before being deleted
Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#715,609
roar joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 9 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#715,623
Maybe you people are better off without me. Go ahead. I say there's a place for us, but maybe it's just another pipe dream, maybe I'm fooling myself again.
Why don't you go find out yourself? Send me a postcard! Go on, there's the door. You can do better, let's see how far you get.
No takers? Fine, but get one thing straight. If you're staying, this isn't a democracy anymore.
Anonymous F replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#715,625
@715,618 (G)
I'm ignoring your butthurt. Have you considered getting to know your Lord and Savior Matt Miller?
Anonymous G replied with this 10 years ago, 41 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#715,627
Anonymous F replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,678
@previous (E)
There's a whole board full. Feel free to ignore it though
Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,692
@previous (F)
I've been on this board for years, and I haven't seen anything posted by Syntax that breaks the rules. If there's a whole board full of violations, it would take you only a matter of seconds to prove your case by linking to just one example.
You won't of course, because you're a lying faggot and you're wrong.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,736
@previous (E)
Rules like being coherent and staying on topic are not rules syntax follows in any post he has ever made on the internet. You are retarded if you think otherwise.
Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,739
@previous (J)
I assume you're referring to rules 3 and 10. I think it's worth pointing out that these were cut & pasted directly from AT. If the admin here decided to follow Kimmo's rules to the letter, they'd have to ban practically everyone on the board.
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,745
@previous (E)
So, throw out all the rules and unban Matt? Or perhaps the rules only apply to Matt and not to syntax
悟 joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,752
@previous (J)
the rules are a joke. unserious fun AT leftovers
you have a point tho. i find it really strange that people prefer syntax schtick to matt schtick
悟 double-posted this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,753
i know there isnt a justifiable reason to ban syntax beyond him being incredibly annoying but id just love it
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 20 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,757
@previous (悟)
Matt is banned for being incredibly annoying, and when that happens syntax ramps his annoying shit to deafening levels and becomes more annoying than Matt was
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,758
@previous (J)
do you actually read syntax's posts?
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,760
Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,761
@715,745 (J)
Matt is a pedophillic piece of shit. Sytax is not. Subsequently, Fatfuck deserves to be banned until the end of time.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,764
@previous (E)
Syntax has been proven to be a pedo, just the same as Matt, TGComix, Jump, T04str, and others. Old posts and screenshots with no proof that would actually convict anyone.
Being called a pedo is never a reason to ban someone. If it was, you are a pedo, and therefore should be banned. Thanks
Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 17 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,766
@previous (J)
We have transcripts and eyewitness testimony that Fatfuck requested pornographic selfies from a minor.
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 29 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,767
Anonymous F replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,777
@previous (E)
That sounds like a convenient lie. Please back up what you say with details.
What is your actual involvement in the child porn conspiracy and who are these mysterious various collectors of cp "evidence"? Absolutely zero proof of anything happening, other than syntax editing chat logs, as per usual when these same old accusations come around? It's not like syntax has an agenda or anything, it's not like he has ever told a lie to make Matt look worse every chance he gets.
Do you subscribe to syntax's cooking oil shit eaters email list?
Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 27 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,784
@OP > Cut him a deal whereby certain themes are out of bounds for him, but if he avoids those themes (body waste, underage genitalia, etc) then he can post here.
If I had a dollar for every time this has been attempted, I could literally pay cash for a new Yaris.
悟 replied with this 10 years ago, 5 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,846
> We have transcripts and eyewitness testimony that Fatfuck requested pornographic selfies from a minor.
dude, he asked anyone confirmed to be a female for 'open leg vulva' shots like constantly. it was his schtick
its fucked up but if thats all you have against him then yeah half of our damn user base would/should be banned too
chili dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,855