Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic are you fucking stupid Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]Justins Luvmuffin[/m] at 10:14 pm on Oct. 5, 2008[quote]Quote: from [m]matto[/m] at 1:13 am on Oct. 6, 2008[quote]Quote: from [m]dreamweaver[/m] at 10:12 pm on Oct. 5, 2008[quote]If it was "building upon another topic", then shouldn't you think it would be posted within that topic?    With this excuse you just used... it still would have been deleted.[/quote]so now topics cannot relate to each other? OOPS THERE GOES 95% OF ALL TOPICS ON LW, GET WORKING LACKY[/quote] You gotta admit, dreamweaver, he makes a good point :sly: [/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post matto Posted at 10:10 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 Topic was a mockery of another topic that was also deleted. This topic was also part of a mini spam going on, which is another reason why it deleted. and I bidenly repeat, "this topic was also part of a mini spam going on" WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?  It's fucking deep thoughts and random musings, it's not SPAMMING, it's using the forum in a way that it was meant to be used.  And it was not mocking another topic, it was building upon another topic in a fashion that was supportive of a random musing environment, bitches. get sum brainz plz

Replies matto Posted at 7:25 am on Oct. 6, 2008 wooo functionality!  Thank you The Oath Posted at 12:01 am on Oct. 6, 2008 I sometimes end up doing it out of laziness (re-adding a post/topic), especially if the issue is really clear-cut. iconoclast Posted at 11:41 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 Quote: from The Oath at 1:15 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from draino at 1:12 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from The Oath at 12:11 am on Oct. 6, 2008 I don't think it should have been deleted. then re-add it? If I were to re-add it without first discussing it with another moderator, it would be the equivalent of spitting on their face. sometimes i like to do that Wolf Posted at 10:32 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 If you feel that topics were removed in error, then state your argument in a clear organized fashion in a Moderator error report. Making this topic will serve to get less done than submitting an MER. My apologies:  You did do one.  I would agree with The Oath, tbh. matto Posted at 10:27 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 My topic was an independent topic that did not go further than "relating" to the other deleted topics, it was in and of itself an authentic random musing that was sparked by some of the other topics.   Wolf Posted at 10:22 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 One spam topic was deleted and the other ones were deleted because they were directly related to the other topics listed. That is a better word than "related." If you make a topic about a topic and said topic gets deleted your "reply to that topic" so to speak goes with it. Edit:  In response to this: so now topics cannot relate to each other? OOPS THERE GOES 95% OF ALL TOPICS ON LW, GET WORKING LACKY matto Posted at 10:18 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 Quote: from dreamweaver at 10:16 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 *yawn* Your points are... well, pointless. You're rather a stubborn one today, arn't ya? you're reasons are...well, reasonless give me some reasons, and give me some answers.  how come all these off topic replies in this topic aren't being deleted? cum funnel Posted at 10:18 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 Quote: from dreamweaver at 10:16 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 *yawn* Your points are... well, pointless. You're rather a stubborn one today, arn't ya? Putting assumptions as reasons for deletion is pointless. It needs to stop happening. A moderator taking something, thinking it means one thing, and running with it is not fair. You might be responsible for keeping things spam-less, but to act as if you know what the poster was thinking just because of when the topic was made is near-senile behaviour. draino Posted at 10:17 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 Quote: from Justins Luvmuffin at 12:17 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from draino at 1:15 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from Justins Luvmuffin at 12:14 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from draino at 1:14 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from mtllcrckmn at 12:12 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from draino at 6:11 am on Oct. 6, 2008 lawls    You warned for pr0n too? yes i do.       why?   Did you get warned for the Julia thing? nope,i told some dude to kill his stalker. That's stupid. It's not insisting harm on an lw member, it's insisting harm upon a PERSON. We shouldn't be labeled as "lw members." Therefore, you shouldn't have been warned inorite draino Posted at 10:17 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 Quote: from The Oath at 12:15 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from draino at 1:12 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from The Oath at 12:11 am on Oct. 6, 2008 I don't think it should have been deleted. then re-add it? If I were to re-add it without first discussing it with another moderator, it would be the equivalent of spitting on their face. ah,okay. Justins Luvmuffin Posted at 10:17 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 Quote: from draino at 1:15 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from Justins Luvmuffin at 12:14 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from draino at 1:14 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from mtllcrckmn at 12:12 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from draino at 6:11 am on Oct. 6, 2008 lawls       You warned for pr0n too? yes i do.   why?    Did you get warned for the Julia thing? nope,i told some dude to kill his stalker. That's stupid. It's not insisting harm on an lw member, it's insisting harm upon a PERSON. We shouldn't be labeled as "lw members." Therefore, you shouldn't have been warned   cum funnel Posted at 10:16 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 Quote: from Justins Luvmuffin at 10:14 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 Quote: from matto at 1:13 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from dreamweaver at 10:12 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 If it was "building upon another topic", then shouldn't you think it would be posted within that topic?     With this excuse you just used... it still would have been deleted. so now topics cannot relate to each other? OOPS THERE GOES 95% OF ALL TOPICS ON LW, GET WORKING LACKY   You gotta admit, dreamweaver, he makes a good point SORRY THAT IS NOT ALLOWED WEEEEEOW WEEEEEOW dreamweaver Posted at 10:16 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 *yawn* Your points are... well, pointless. You're rather a stubborn one today, arn't ya? The Oath Posted at 10:15 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 Quote: from draino at 1:12 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from The Oath at 12:11 am on Oct. 6, 2008 I don't think it should have been deleted. then re-add it? If I were to re-add it without first discussing it with another moderator, it would be the equivalent of spitting on their face. draino Posted at 10:15 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 Quote: from Justins Luvmuffin at 12:14 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from draino at 1:14 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from mtllcrckmn at 12:12 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from draino at 6:11 am on Oct. 6, 2008 lawls   You warned for pr0n too? yes i do.    why? Did you get warned for the Julia thing? nope,i told some dude to kill his stalker. Most recent 15 of 33 previous replies displayed.