Do you hear that?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Looks like MIXUM is still generating posts after his inevitable demise.

Amazing.

Just as a word of advise to those who couldn't tolerate MIXUM's shit stirring carnival. Acknowledge his existence, but just don't react to him. That's all he wants, is your attention.

You don't have to ignore him (whether it be with the site's ignore feature or through personal choice). Just don't give him fuel for his fire.

MIXUM reminds me a great deal of my childish step father. Who will say and do inappropriate things just to elicit a response. One he gets that response and the attention he so desperately seeks, he piles on with anything and everything to make you angry or upset, because once you're acting out in such a way. It makes him look all the stronger.

It's a child's game, played by childish people. Who obviously didn't get enough attention when they were actual children.

That's all this is to MIXUM, a game. You're the one who chooses to play along.

After he made his comments about Maurice Lucas, I made it a rule not to respond to him in any way shape or form. (Although I bent the rule once before, and am also doing it right now.)

I felt I needed to pass on this piece of advice, if you follow it, your forum experience will improve ten fold.

Mine has. :)

Whether he stays banned or not, MIXUM wont be getting his mental masturbation kicks, from me.

Back to it.
 
Last edited:
I liked the whole "smokey and the bandit" references. I got a little lost on it at times with it and as usual mixum was half talking out of his ass with all those analogies. But the refrences permeated several threads and were funny and intriguing at times . . . who is the good guy and bad guy in that movie?

My take: Roy is Smokey and Andre is the Bandit . . . and that's no dig on Andre. :D

Denny, I think you took it wrong when I said the moral majority wins. I should have just said the majority wins . . . which is not a bad thing. I did imply you had to make a tough call between losing posters or taking the extreme and banning mixum (I think that is what it came down to). You choose quaility for the board (in your mind) vs. post count and views, . . .very ethical choice on your part.

I just wish most could deal with a mixum on this board . . . I found him fun and witty, in a mixum way.
 
PapaG said:
You responded to a post of mine. Wouldn't that be you trolling me?

This entire thread is basically trollish, and look at who started it. You trolled a poster who couldn't respond to this thread even if he wanted to say something.

I said from Day One that you wouldn't be a good mod candidate. I was right. :)
Click to expand...

You loooooove to try to elicit a response, which is pretty trollish in and of itself.
 
Natebishop3 said:
You loooooove to try to elicit a response, which is pretty trollish in and of itself.
Click to expand...

I loooooooove to elicit a response . . . no one ever gives a shit what I have to say

(except denny and jlprk . . . love you guys)
 
Last edited:
TripTango said:
But what if a significant majority of posters lack your poise and tolerance for cynicism? What if MIXUM's net sum, for most posters, was a strong negative? What if most folks believed that he was not, in fact, a fan at all, and just enjoyed riling people up? Is it fair and valid to remove his ability to post in this case?
Click to expand...

I don't agree it was the majority, but whether it was, just give the true reason, not some fake reason citing never-enforced fake board rules. The real reason was probably that Denny no longer had the energy to keep reading PMs from the same individuals complaining.

"Calling out Mixum" was simply part of the week-long campaign, executed competently but with no tangible results, to get him to say something incriminating. I'm shining a light on fake reasons, as I do for any war.

TripTango said:
I was trango99 on ESPN -- I posted there around 2004-2005. Always enjoyed your posts, and even won a couple of your puzzles (though I have yet to receive my promised rewards...). I went back recently to try and find those old threads, but it looks like they did some housekeeping on the forums. If you've got some unsolved puzzles, let em loose!
Click to expand...

I remember you, but not a lot because you weren't there long. Those were prizeless riddles, like the predictions game when I ran it. Maybe I can find some. I think one was, who was the second NBA player who skipped college but was in the college draft. No, it wasn't Bill Willoughby or Moses Malone or Darryl Dawkins.

TripTango said:
P.S. Regarding "lulz": http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lulz
Click to expand...

Someone put a lot of work into that site.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Lulz_Map
 
jlprk said:
I remember you, but not a lot because you weren't there long. Those were prizeless riddles, like the predictions game when I ran it. Maybe I can find some. I think one was, who was the second NBA player who skipped college but was in the college draft. No, it wasn't Bill Willoughby or Moses Malone or Darryl Dawkins.
Click to expand...

I know they were just casual riddles -- I was just trying to elicit a prize there... ;)

The riddles I got were more of the math variety -- I'm not nearly as good at history. I seem to recall some good ones involving long equations and jersey numbers. And maybe Sergio Rodriguez.
 
Webs of lies and deciet. You guys are all scuzzily trolls, all of you!
 
All the little troll backers are coming out of the woodwork now...
 
African American's are in a silent rage over this.... ROFL

ee645504-a4ec-485d-aa3e-fc40a33a8961.jpg
 
Natebishop3 said:
You loooooove to try to elicit a response, which is pretty trollish in and of itself.
Click to expand...

Some people love to use the phrase "elicit a response," which of course is the definition of the word "communication." The phrase never elicits the response that the accuser desires, because it just leaves the accusee befuddled. If you want to elicit a response from accusing someone of wanting to elicit a response, you would be better served by explaining in each instance just what was wrong in that instance with wanting to elicit a response.

MickZagger said:
All the little troll backers are coming out of the woodwork now...
Click to expand...

Translation: When your claimed advantage by numbers demonstrably fails, profess superiority over the majority.

jlprk said:
I am just appalled by these 2 posts you keep referring to, Denny. Please describe how they got Mixum banned.
Click to expand...

What I meant was that Mixum's 2 posts were ordinary and nothing to be appalled about. The 2 posts were just an official reason for a decision made before they existed.

A day later, I see that readers might think I was appalled at Denny for being appalled, or something. Too late to correct the reader's impression, but there it is anyway. I wasn't appalled at Denny or the ban--I was sarcastically casting doubt on Denny's pretending to be appalled. Put this in your Urban Dictionary: disingenuous appallagement.

I'll add that this board is far more intelligently moderated than ESPN. I always thought that some anonymous teenager moderated 50 ESPN boards by himself, pushing random buttons to delete posts while playing his video game. It was very random.
 
Last edited:
jlprk said:
Some people love to use the phrase "elicit a response," which of course is the definition of the word "communication." The phrase never elicits the response that the accuser desires, because it just leaves the accusee befuddled. If you want to elicit a response from accusing someone of wanting to elicit a response, you would be better served by explaining in each instance just what was wrong in that instance with wanting to elicit a response.



Translation: When your claimed advantage by numbers demonstrably fails, profess superiority over the majority.



What I meant was that Mixum's 2 posts were ordinary and nothing to be appalled about. The 2 posts were just an official reason for a decision made before they existed.

A day later, I see that readers might think I was appalled at Denny for being appalled, or something. Too late to correct the reader's impression, but there it is anyway. I wasn't appalled at Denny or the ban--I was sarcastically casting doubt on Denny's pretending to be appalled. Put this in your Urban Dictionary: disingenuous appallagement.

I'll add that this board is far more intelligently moderated than ESPN. I always thought that some anonymous teenager moderated 50 ESPN boards by himself, pushing random buttons to delete posts while playing his video game. It was very random.
Click to expand...

You're right, but it's the kind of response that some posters try to elicit that we take issue with.
 
I've noticed this in your other posts. You like to speak in the purple royal "We." Instead of the transparent attempt to intimidate with a false majority, why not just honestly speak for yourself.
 
jlprk said:
Some people love to use the phrase "elicit a response," which of course is the definition of the word "communication." The phrase never elicits the response that the accuser desires, because it just leaves the accusee befuddled. If you want to elicit a response from accusing someone of wanting to elicit a response, you would be better served by explaining in each instance just what was wrong in that instance with wanting to elicit a response.
Click to expand...

Out of curiousity, who are these "some people"? The first time I could recall seeing the phrase round these parts was in this very thread when PapaG used it to call me a troll:

What other purpose was calling me out, other than to elicit a response from me? Answer me that, and I'll reconsider my view of you being a troll.
Click to expand...

Just to be thorough, I did a quick search of the forum for the word "elicit". I couldn't find many instances of the phrase used in an accusatory context -- only a post by some guy named BGrantFan accusing blazerboy of being a troll.

Curious.
 
TripTango said:
Out of curiousity, who are these "some people"? The first time I could recall seeing the phrase round these parts was in this very thread when PapaG used it to call me a troll:



Just to be thorough, I did a quick search of the forum for the word "elicit". I couldn't find many instances of the phrase used in an accusatory context -- only a post by some guy named BGrantFan accusing blazerboy of being a troll.

Curious.
Click to expand...

When they make the word 'elicit' illicit, only the illicit will use 'elicit'.

How much response could an illicit woodchuck elicit, if an illicit woodchuck could chuck norris?

barfo
 
barfo said:
When they make the word 'elicit' illicit, only the illicit will use 'elicit'.

How much response could an illicit woodchuck elicit, if an illicit woodchuck could chuck norris?

barfo
Click to expand...

106 responses?

EDIT: I mean 107!
 
jlprk said:
I've noticed this in your other posts. You like to speak in the purple royal "We." Instead of the transparent attempt to intimidate with a false majority, why not just honestly speak for yourself.
Click to expand...

I am the self-elected envoy of the "Ban all Trolls" club here at S2, and on behalf of the BaT club, we don't like you very much. Didn't you say you were going to leave months ago, never to return?
 
TripTango said:
Out of curiousity, who are these "some people"? The first time I could recall seeing the phrase round these parts was in this very thread when PapaG used it to call me a troll:



Just to be thorough, I did a quick search of the forum for the word "elicit". I couldn't find many instances of the phrase used in an accusatory context -- only a post by some guy named BGrantFan accusing blazerboy of being a troll.

Curious.
Click to expand...

Could it be? Could it really? Could . . . it?

BGrantFan may very well be PapaG! Maybe?

Nah . . . it's just too crazy.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I am the self-elected envoy of the "Ban all Trolls" club here at S2, and on behalf of the BaT club, we don't like you very much.
Click to expand...
That reminds of this. I always have about 10 items waiting in queue for my signature, and one that's been there for a month or two is

I know that I speak for everyone when I say that as for me, I don't like you.

Actually you'll never find these exact quotes in the search function because I, uh, slightly improve the original posts I find. So much so that, okay, I am pretty much the author of them. I think that for that one, someone wrote to someone, "No one likes you" and I "evolved" it.
Natebishop3 said:
Didn't you say you were going to leave months ago, never to return?
Click to expand...
Finally an opportunity has arisen to apologize for damaging your cheer when I hung that possibility over you. I was going to leave when I reached 3500 posts, but I fell for the sad look on your avatar face, so I changed it to 35,000 posts. I can't compromise any more because that's tentatively firm in the submitted budget.
 
The 1st rule of BaT club is there is no talking about BaT club.
 
We non-moderators have a couple of semi-secret clubs too, but I think I'm allowed to mention the MLHftM Club, though not what it stands for. Suffice it to say that mods should like me because I'm the moderating influence there. You are in no danger as long as I stick around.
 
jlprk said:
We non-moderators have a couple of semi-secret clubs too, but I think I'm allowed to mention the MLHftM Club, though not what it stands for. Suffice it to say that mods should like me because I'm the moderating influence there. You are in no danger as long as I stick around.
Click to expand...

Make Life Hell for the Man

EDIT: This would be a great club, even if it's not the name of yours!
 
The Elders just voted you out for telling! You are disgusting! Begone and turn in your laundered cone hood if your want your deposit back.
 
yenniedn said:
So you're saying BGrantFan is Clark Kent and PapaG is . . . SuperArguingJustForTheSakeOfArguingIsFunMan?
Click to expand...

Let's not make him the new forum scapegoat. I'd rather we just occasionally scoffed instead of focusing all derision towards him.
 
nothing is as frustrating as arguing with someone who knows what hes talking about
 
Last edited:
jlprk said:
We non-moderators have a couple of semi-secret clubs too, but I think I'm allowed to mention the MLHftM Club, though not what it stands for. Suffice it to say that mods should like me because I'm the moderating influence there. You are in no danger as long as I stick around.
Click to expand...

I like you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top