- DIHQ'S CELEBRITY BOXING POLL -> Well, isn't this just peachy!

Start A New Topic | Reply

Post Info

TOPIC: Well, isn't this just peachy!

Posted By: alfonsothefan Posted On: Sep 23, 2003 Views: 871	Well, isn't this just peachy! Seems over at Barb Hoffa's 'Producer's Corner' ol' Barb said "some guys couldn't play by the rules...." blah, blah, blah; ergo, no mas message board. Since Barb asked that no one answer or respond to her little spiel, perhaps I will now respond to her current pap and some other stuff that's come over the transum these past few months. You will note I play by her 'request'. To begin, Rough and I and - to a lesser extent - Marty, were accused of somehow "helping" to shut her site down. WRONG. I ask that you note that I again follow her 'rule' and didn't respond to her false charge (didn't post on her Prod Forum): Indeed, while she uses the plural "guys" she then lapsed into some schtik about her being "outed" and having "lawyers" and such roaming around and causing havac. Enoughs enough... One, I have no idea who the hell 'Barb' is and don't really care. Two, if an attorney contacted her, anyone who knows me would know I had nothing to do with it, for I hate attorneys with the same passion I hate leftists, journalists and bureaucrats. Three, I'm so tired of this liberal/pc/leftish 'touchy-feely' crap that says "lets have equality! Equality of gender. Equality of incomes. Equality of...GUILT!" WRONG. I make my share of mistakes and I'll own up to them. Just DON'T ask me to accept responsibility to being A) part of a lawsuit against you or B) bringing down your damn mb. Rough and I are as guilty of her charges as the man in the moon (granted, she didn't name 'names'...she didn't have to). Barb should take some responsibilty for HER refusal to even name the jackass who was responsible. It was like warbling about 9-11 and not mentioning Osama bin Laden. Very strange. Maybe she'll falsely accuse Rough and I of closing down her stupid LC site, too. Then, maybe she can get sued again. Ah, that's a joke. Remember: I hate attorneys. atf, the anti-Jabroni
Posted By: legion Posted On: Sep 24, 2003 Views: 862	RE: reading is fundamental, comprehension is key As usual, Fonzie cannot read, and is incapable of understanding that which he attempts to read, as he conflates several different instances, at least one that occurred before Fonzie ever started posting on Hoffas bored, and personalizes them. Will leege explain it all to him in simplistic terms that perhaps even the Fonz can understand? No. Instead, today children, I'm going to teach by example. See? I do not respond to every idiocy with a flame (there aren't enough hours in the day to respond to every idiocy regurgitated by this bunch), every flame with a flame, every comment with a flame, every everything with a flame, and keep it going and going and going no matter what like the energizer flamer in perpetuity. I just say my piece and move on. This is a method some children have yet to learn. Till now.
Posted By: alfonsothefan Posted On: Sep 24, 2003 Views: 857	RE: As usual, you miss the point... ....BoreUs... See, I'm not starting a flame war. Only asking that she say who it was that DID cause her to close down and differentiating between the guilty and the innocent... Wait a while. Geez, this is like 'show and tell with Stevie Wonder'. Drop dead. atf
Posted By: Dharma Bum, Posted On: Sep 24, 2003 Views: 848	You're making yourself Point-Man here, Fonz, and it's a position I don't think you need to be in. Leege is right. You're responding to things that Barb didn't say. Who closed down the MB? JABRONI closed down the MB. Plain and simple. There's been flame wars before this, just as mean and just as vicious, and the Board didn't close down. Only when Jabroni was involved did the Board go down, because Jabroni is, in my opinion, a fruit loop with the emotional maturity of a three-year old child. Did the flame war contribute to the Board going down? Of COURSE it did. It would be self-serving to the point of masterbation to say that it didn't. But, as I see it, Jabroni's the one that turned the heat up higher and higher. I've read many, if not all, of the post's in the flame-war. It was as mean, as nasty, as vicious as any I've seen on the Board. But of all the people involved, you, Fonz, were the only one who responded with any degree of civility and decency, and you responded this way for quite some time. As I recall, it was only after you were called a FAG time and time again, even in threads you wern't even contributing to, that you finally had enough and started giving back as good as you got. I don't see how you can be faulted for this. Well then. did Rough and Marty close dowm the MB? No. As I see it, JABRONI closed down the MB. Yes, the flame war contributed, but Jabroni got down on his hands and knees and BEGGED for people to respond to him that way. He got the responses he asked for, and he got the responses he deserved. He is in no way a poor little victim here. The way I see it, everyone involved is "guilty" only of keeping a vicious flame war going longer then it needed to. Only Jabroni can be blamed for closing down the board.
Posted By: JSK Posted On: Sep 24, 2003 Views: 836	RE: Well, isn't this just peachy! Well obviously Jabs had no case. I'd sue the pants (or dress) off the guy for all the BS he caused her . She seriously could . I'm glad the idiot got bashed .... he deserved each and every one of them. People flame ,but usually you can get over it in just a few days ... weeks or whatever . He simply couldn't . Thats why he got it so bad. It tells you something when people started going there just to down the idiot. And it really tells you how much of a loser he is when "newbies" went on there and began the bashing process on him also just because of who he was and how he acted. I couldn't tell you how many times me and a few others caught him posting under a different name . Each time he was questioned about it he didn't reply to the message . And he insulted me and others for no particular reason , but I let it slide. Kinda tells ya something right there . Not everyone was against the guy , but for what he did everyone should be now . If this is what someone does when they get ****ed on a free site, I'd hate to have to be customer service for this man elsewhere where he'd be paying for something. For example (jabs @ Burger king) MY WHOOPER DOESN"T HAVE PICKLES !!! I LOVE PICKLES IN MY MOUTH ! I'M GONNA HAVE THIS BURGERKIND SHUT DOWN !!! What a friggin ego the guy has . Lets face it he kept it up and ofcourse he was gonna take the heat . He brought it to where it went no one else did. I doubt he ever wrote Barb about these issues and sadly she was a ghost on that board for some time . She allowed him to boast and brag his stupidity, but in that same time axed other(s) posts that were on topic? Hey its her right to that though . But , for being grown men and women should she really have to be there on a day to day basis ? No ! Who'd expect someone to run off cryin to their lawyer ? Does the name Jabaroni make him money and did any of the posts people made ruin his reputation ? He ruined it himself and now sealed that by what he did . I do feel bad for her and its ****ty to pull a stunt like this on someone who does something for the enjoyment of others . And to top it off mess with her for real just because he was insulted ?!?! Thats a little much . So... How she worded it was correct . Yes , people did start flames and it went out of control. But , only Jabs brought it to where it is today .... nowhere. And if he's reading this thanks for nothing asshole , JSK
Posted By: alfonsothefan Posted On: Sep 24, 2003 Views: 814	RE: Wrong, Darma Geez, lets end this here, but if you look and see what legion wrote and you agreed with him, you will see that it contains errors and you ignore the specifics of what I'm saying: It was contended that I somehow 'misread' and 'misunderstood' Barb's statements. WRONG. Here is the statements as pertains to the issue at hand. Tell me how you could say that somehow I've not 'understood' the issue?! "2. (The message board) is dead for the time being because a FEW PEOPLE (my caps) could not conduct themselves with respect and gratitude and decency and I was enveloped into a situation that exposed and threatened my privacy and the equanimity of my family. I was 'outed'. I was threatened with legal action. I had lawyers calling one of my places of work. I had lawyers calling my internet provider... Why? Because SOME GUYS wanted to have flame wars on our message board." Now tell me where she singled out the idiot - Jabroni - who had the lawers (or someone pretending to be one); tell me where I misread the part wherein I thought she was blaming MORE THAN ONE GUY? No, YOU misread what I'm saying. I've indicated that Barb is doing the pc thing: guys/men/society...maybe YOU, Dharma, are responsible. No where...I mean NO WHERE did she mention history, last year, two years ago...a decade ago. No, she said she had to shut the thing down due to threats made to her and her family. When I hear crap like this, I demand specifics. Oh, you needn't provide any and you can agree with legion, with all the name calling and such. Just don't expect me to agree. BTW, anyone will tell you all you need to know about one guy alling another a "homosexual", "faggot", "queer" or whatever. It bothered me not in the least. My only concern in this regard may be the lady I'm with @ the moment, but I've never had any problems in that area. Do you get the feeling this 'Manchild' has had said problems? I said what I said and I meant what I said. Someone comes after you, someone does you harm, as Barb alleges, discriminate between crucial differences. She didn't do that. Show me where she said Jabroni (or whoever it was that made the accusations) was the party responsible. Remember: Barb was the one who speculated that 9/11 may have been an internal (U.S.) "action". Seems that 'blaming the victim' is part of her make-up. legion goes farther, but THAT is another subject. Yes, yes, I know she didn't name names. But she should have, IMHO. Yes, killer, I too feel sorry for her if all of what she said is true. Who wouldn't, besides Jabroni, Jim Reid and maybe Lugar? atf
Posted By: Dharma Bum Posted On: Sep 24, 2003 Views: 809	Sigh...! Yes. I DO agree with Leege on this. I read Barb's post, I read your reply, and I think your reading comprehension is a tad impaired. FONZ: "...if an attorney contacted her, anyone who knows me would know I had nothing to do with it..." I didn't read anywhere in Barbs post that she states that you sicced a lawyer on her. I didn't read anything that IMPLIED you sicced a lawyer on her. I didn't read anything that stated or implied that everyone involved is equally responsible for her being contacted by a lawyer. True to her form, she didn't state specifically who called the lawyer, but we all know it wasn't you, Fonz. FONZ: "...I'm so tired of this liberal/pc/lefist...crap that says 'lets have equality! Equality of gender. Equality of...GUILT!" I don't even know what the hell you're babbling about, here. FONZ: "Maybe she'll falsely accuse Rough and I of closing down her stupid LC site, too." Probably not, Fonz. I called it the way I see it, Fonz, and I still see it that way. I don't expect you to agree, and that's fine with me. If you reply, I will certainly read what you have to say, but I won't reply (unless you change my mind). I agree this should have an end in sight.
Posted By: Dharma Bum Posted On: Sep 24, 2003 Views: 802	Sorry, I forgot one important item NOWHERE in her post did Barb say her family was threatened. She said the EQUANIMITY of her family was threatened. That's nowhere near the same thing. In this situation, it means her family was placed under stress. To read what you wrote in your post, you'd think her family was physically threatened, and that's not what she said.
Posted By: alfonsothefan Posted On: Sep 24, 2003 Views: 796	RE: Well, isn't this just peachy! Dharma, you're grasping at straws here. No where did I indicate that Barb's Family is in "physical danger". You make the mistake you accuse me of making with respect to Barb's 'lecture' at the Producers Notices: you have 'filled in' a thought/notion/idea I did not intend. I never indicated at all that Barb or her family was in physical danger. In fact, I pretty much believe they may feel exasperated, possibly professionally humiliated...but physical? Now who's reading something into this that wasn't there? The pc comment, if you read it in its entirety, noted that Barb - and folks who think like Barb - sometimes look like they are "blaming the victim" and not the perp. Quite simple, really. The 9/11 example was sufficient, IMHO. Whether you reply is unimportant. What is kind of amusing is that we're writing like there's any importance in this. There is not. Truth be known, I don't even know if a 'Barb' exists. Might be some smuck poser. I DO know an idiot named Jabroni threatened legal action and apparently he fulfilled his promise. Bully for him. Makes no difference to me. I just can't understand why you can't see what I'm saying: the 'omission' of the name Jabroni didn't say nothing...it spoke volumes. Perhaps it's a lack of my getting something across to you. Let's keep it there and forgettaboutit. Cuz I have... atf
Posted By: alfonsothefan Posted On: Sep 24, 2003 Views: 795	RE: Ah oh, before you say... ...'if this wasn't important, why bring it up?' lemmee 'splain something to you. My initial anger is directed at people who see an action, activity, problem, crime, etc., and see that one party is pretty much innocent and another pretty much guilty. THEN, they 'equate' and 'parcel out equally'...guilt. My point is the analogous example here. Barb's mb is not, of course, important. The trend of blaming the victim is. We get angry and say the cops are as bad as the robbers, the USA is as bad as Red China. Bush = Hitler. Don't believe it? Obviously you haven't seen the scribbling done here... I'm sick of it. Bush hasn't murdered millions of people; the USA does ocasionally stand for freedom; police have their bad eggs, but on the whole do a good job and an impoortant one. If I didn't get through to you after this, please DO NOT respond. atf
Posted By: Dharma Bum Posted On: Sep 24, 2003 Views: 792	Maybe just ONE little reply. Re: the initial flame war. Since you had the choice to walk away when it became obvious that Jabroni was an emotional cripple, yet chose to keep responding, I don't agree that you can be called a "victim" here.
Posted By: alfosothefan Posted On: Sep 25, 2003 Views: 789	RE: Victim? Me? Never said I was, not in the sense you derive. The 'victim' was, of course, Barb and her service. I, however, was using a more generic useage of 'victim' to mean she - Barb - was all inclusive instead of being specific and precise. In that sense I suppose you could derive some kind of allusion to 'victimhood' toward those who were part of her 'complaint' in my post. As I said, the analogous pointing at 'others' does appear to 'blame the victim'. It more accuately, however, 'shifts the burden of blame' from the guilty to the innocent. Again, the true 'victim' can only be a person who actually 'loses' something. Since neither Rough nor I could possibly lose anything of value, we could never be 'victims' in the truist sense. But Barb's posting and subsequent blaming of more than one person is, again, my only complaint. Perhaps the old adage of "blaming the victim" was off-base. Still, the content and complaint remain the same, bad analogies aside... I have no problem jousting back and forth with all types. You are a perfect example. I have no idea who you are and couldn't care less. If you see beyond your blinders you may see that I was attacking the principle of 'combining and assimilating all posters who flamed' and not pin-pointing the only person who brought down the message board. You will note that it is you and legion who have done the flaming here, with the insinuation that I have no "reading comprehension" and so forth. I believe your ignoring my main point and have throughout: That Barb (or whoever wrote the post), if she really was legally attacked, owed it to her credibility to state precisely the name of the person who did the attacking. And no, not everyone is aware of this issue or of Jabroni. atf
Posted By: Dharma Bum Posted On: Sep 25, 2003 Views: 781	I didn't mean to ignore your main point... just that there were so many other points to comment on. OK, your main point seems to be that if Barb were to "...state precisely the name of the person who did the attacking", this would somehow establish her credibility in claiming that she "...really was legally attacked". So if she says that "[Jabroni], or [Fonz}, or [Rough]caused my site to crash" then it's possible that it really happened that she was legally attacked, but if she says "my site crashed because a group of guys had a flame-war", then there's good reason to believe the legal attack never happened. Now that is what you said, Fonz; i'm using direct quotes here. If that's actually what you meant, I admit I don't get it. You'll have to explain it to me. You can use words of one-syllable if you feel you must, I don't mind at all. 'Understanding' is my goal. Because I don't see how those two ideas go together at all. In fact, the only thing that I can see that that would do is publically establish that she doesn't blame you in any way, which is what I think you want from her. Why don't you just ask her? It's obvious as hell that Jabroni's the one who went to the lawyer, which is the single, premeditated act that led to the board's collapse.
Posted By: JSK Posted On: Sep 25, 2003 Views: 772	RE: Well, isn't this just peachy! Barb only mentioned that "A few people couldn't conduct themselves with respect and graditude ....ect. (When hasn't that happened !?!?!!) She didn't name anyone like she did when her board went down the first time . Maybe she learned something on that note? Maybe she wanted to say more but simply couldn't at this time ? After all it is what happened even though theres flamers on every message board .We're all guilty of it at some time or another,but from how it sounds only one is really the one to blame for the actual problem. The rest only stirred it up , but I'll ad it wasn't any different than what usually went on over there . I'm sure if WE all knew that Jab's was going to take it to this level something would have been done more differently by Barb and all of us . Theres nothing we can do now and yelling at each other about something we can't do anything about isn't going to solve anything here or there. The hell with what happened. Lets move on boyz. If not you can tell me to go F myself and keep it up. Just felt like chimin in .... JSK
Posted By: Dharma Bum Posted On: Sep 25, 2003 Views: 769	Chime away, JSK, I agree totally My point about the original flame-war was always this: If Jabroni contacted a lawyer, and for the life of me I can't imagine who else would, then Jabroni is the one who brought this silly crap out of cyberspace and into the real world,which is the only place where it could actually hurt anyone. No matter how much ANYONE else CONTRIBUTED to the final outcome,this act alone is what made it real. Therefore, whoever committed this act is responsible. IMO.

Pages [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next Page ->

http://