Greg, DHS and 2knees

[bvibert]

Talk and action are two differences things. But assuming what you say has any validity to it, does that mean that every time someone that post there decides to post here there is an evil plan in the works? Any chance that it's just one person posting and not a "conspiracy"? By the way, I'm not sneaky at all. I think I'm pretty up front in everything I do.

I always assume people have good intentions, at first. Once they prove to me that isn't generally the case I'm more skeptical.

BTW - For the record; the talk in question has most certainly been backed up by action on several occasions. There's no point in questioning the validity of my statement, you guys already validated for me.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

See this is just going to get hostile, gonna stay out of it.

Yeah right...what ever happened to civil debate?

 

[Nick]

+1 +1 +1

c'mon kiddos :argue: :flame:

 

[Nick]

Yeah right...what ever happened to civil debate?

I think it's pretty damn civil so far. Good job everyone :beer:

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

I always assume people have good intentions, at first. Once they prove to me that isn't generally the case I'm more skeptical.

BTW - For the record; the talk in question has most certainly been backed up by action on several occasions. There's no point in questioning the validity of my statement, you guys already validated for me.

Why are u making this about you? I was asking about 3 guys from here who post there.
If you want to pick a fight why don't you strt your own thread?

 

[Riverskier]

Oh sorry, it wasn't clear. "You guys" means the andyzone contingent, otherwise known as the anti-alpinezone moderation crew. The rest was a paraphrase of Andy's past comment. I'm sorry it didn't come over correctly.

I'm also sorry you think I'm being hostile. Then again that fits right in with the usual trouble starting MO, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Of course I'm playing right into it, you guys... sorry, strike that... to be more clear: the folks at nszone should have plenty of material for a while now. You're welcome.

WOW! I recomend anger management, seriously. Lumping everyone together who posts on NS is ridiculous. I don't consider myself a trouble maker at all. I don't always agree with moderation decisions here, but I am certianly not part of an "anti-alpinezone moderation crew" and I enjoy both sites for what they are. If NS isn't your thing, then don't post there, but lumping together and throwing everyone under the bus that posts there is a bit unfair and over the top.

 

[bvibert]

See this is just going to get hostile, gonna stay out of it.

Just because you say it's hostile doesn't mean it is. But once again, that fits in with the usual MO (saying I'm getting hostile to rile people up even further), which just further confirms my thoughts as to the intent of this thread.

If you want to see hostile you should go back and read the lies spread about me on your very own forum.

 

[Nick]

Lumping everyone together who posts on NS is ridiculous. I don't consider myself a trouble maker at all.

That's fair enough. There are several over there that I really like quite a bit in my ~10 months on the forum.

 

[bvibert]

WOW! I recomend anger management, seriously. Lumping everyone together who posts on NS is ridiculous. I don't consider myself a trouble maker at all. I don't always agree with moderation decisions here, but I am certianly not part of an "anti-alpinezone moderation crew" and I enjoy both sites for what they are. If NS isn't your thing, then don't post there, but lumping together and throwing everyone under the bus that posts there is a bit unfair and over the top.

Exactly the point of my comment, glad you got it.

I guess you really think I'm angry? I'm curious how you detect tone over the internet? Whatever the method, it's flawed.

 

[bvibert]

Why are u making this about you? I was asking about 3 guys from here who post there.
If you want to pick a fight why don't you strt your own thread?

I'm not the one making it about me. Apparently I'm not allowed to post my opinion without being singled out.

 

[Black Phantom]

Exactly the point of my comment, glad you got it.

I guess you really think I'm angry? I'm curious how you detect tone over the internet? Whatever the method, it's flawed.

What method do you use?

 

[Nick]

What method do you use?

Usage of smileys :uzi:

 

[ctenidae]

I always assume people have good intentions, at first.

See, that's where you've got it wrong. You should assume that people are satisfying their own intentions. Whether they're "good" or not is relative.

You can then either assist them in achieving their goals, ignore them entirely, or actively work against them. You'll find, I think, that the first and third options often amount to the same thing.

 

[bvibert]

What method do you use?

I don't, that's one of the inherent flaws of communicating via text. You can sometimes make assumptions based on context, but it's often tough to tell for sure.

 

[Black Phantom]

See, that's where you've got it wrong. You should assume that people are satisfying their own intentions. Whether they're "good" or not is relative.

You can then either assist them in achieving their goals, ignore them entirely, or actively work against them. You'll find, I think, that the first and third options often amount to the same thing.

 

[bvibert]

See, that's where you've got it wrong. You should assume that people are satisfying their own intentions. Whether they're "good" or not is relative.

You can then either assist them in achieving their goals, ignore them entirely, or actively work against them. You'll find, I think, that the first and third options often amount to the saem thing.

Very wise, thanks. You are, of course, completely correct. I often fail to choose the second option, even when I know I should.

 

[Riverskier]

Exactly the point of my comment, glad you got it.

I guess you really think I'm angry? I'm curious how you detect tone over the internet? Whatever the method, it's flawed.

Huh? Are you actually agreeing with me? If so, this comment wasn't worded well:

""You guys" means the andyzone contingent, otherwise known as the anti-alpinezone moderation crew."

That comment quite clearly sounds like you are lumping everyone together that posts on Andy's site. If you are making some other point, then it was lost on me.

As for the anger issue, your tone is that of anger and hostility. That doesn't mena you are, but it clearly comes across that way.

 

[andyzee]

Just because you say it's hostile doesn't mean it is. But once again, that fits in with the usual MO (saying I'm getting hostile to rile people up even further), which just further confirms my thoughts as to the intent of this thread.

If you want to see hostile you should go back and read the lies spread about me on your very own forum.

Oh please, do tell us about the lies.

 

[SkiDork]

"You guys" What the heck is that supposed to mean?

Bob Chipeska: Oh no, this is not a handicapped thing. I have nothing against you people.
Willie: You people? Did you hear that Marcus? He said 'You People.'
Marcus: Who the hell is us people?
Bob Chipeska: No... He said... But... what... No no. Um, I think it's best if we just forget we had this conversation.
Willie: Good thinking. And don't worry about us. We'll be fine. Let's get the hell out of here Marcus.
[Willie and Marcus get up to leave as Willie turns back to Bob]
Willie: You're pathetic.

 

[Nick]

Bob Chipeska: Oh no, this is not a handicapped thing. I have nothing against you people.
Willie: You people? Did you hear that Marcus? He said 'You People.'
Marcus: Who the hell is us people?
Bob Chipeska: No... He said... But... what... No no. Um, I think it's best if we just forget we had this conversation.
Willie: Good thinking. And don't worry about us. We'll be fine. Let's get the hell out of here Marcus.
[Willie and Marcus get up to leave as Willie turns back to Bob]
Willie: You're pathetic.

:lol: The second I saw "you guys" that's also all I could think of.