Dr. Shades wrote:This isn't a spam thread, since it references something that took place recently between participants.
Refering to in an attempt to discuss and refering to in an attempt to be a snotty litlte prat and flame someone are two different things. This thread adds nothing to any debate that I can see, and basically serves as nothing more then another attempt by certain people to be assholes to other people (not that I'm against that at all).
So yeah, by any convential definition this thread is spam. Worse yet is flamebait spam.
Dr. Shades wrote:What you evaluate as having zero content isn't necessarily what others would evaluate as having zero content.
Ok, Shades... Explain what possible constructive purpose dragging this particular topic through the mud again serves. It's a poi tless ego-pump +1 post padding spam thread meant to start another useless +1 post flame pit.
Dr. Shades wrote:You yourself labeled your post as spam. "Picspam," you called it. I merely agreed with you.
Spamming in a spam thread is bad since when? If you're going to allow the useless spam thread to exist then why not allow it to be spammed up.
Dr. Shades wrote:If you don't like the content of a thread, the solution isn't to post picspam. The solution is to click the "Back" button.
Yeah, because I'm honest enough (and without any real convictions towards either side of the Mo/Ex-Mo debate) to call a spade a spade, or in this case a spam thread a spam thread. I got better idea, do your damned job, oh great Admin, and put useless thread where they belong as per your own board TOU.
I was afraid of the dark when I was young. "Don't be afraid, my son," my mother would always say. "The child-eating night goblins can smell fear." Bitch... - Kreepy Kat