Be careful what you wish for.

[canpakes]

Ceeboo, regardless of you having missed the early phase of Cultellus’s spamming multiple threads with over 300 posts having nothing to do with claimed injustices perpetrated against one active board member months ago, do you feel that Cultellus’s actions are sensible, reasonable, or conducive to better board operations?

Wait, what's this about?

When Cultellus first arrived, they spammed the board with over 300 posts on multiple threads over the course of the first two weeks. Every post was either gibberish, an attempt to troll, or an insult.

Not one post made any reference to any perceived injustice levied at current posters.

After publicly admitting that they were here to ‘ruin the board’, then revealing themself as a troll in a self-authored thread, Cultellus realized that this wasn’t the best path for survival on the board, and then tried to rationalize their behavior by claiming this ‘social justice’ line, but screwed that up by sweeping everyone into the same basket of offenders, continuing to insult folks by name. Cultellus has since zeroed in on Doc (they have nothing on me aside from my trolling back humorously, which apparently upset him), which is where we stand now.

This speaks to original intent, which was and remains to disrupt the board. If any of Cultellus’s story were true, then they would not have engaged in worse behavior than anything they had previously witnessed, at a magnitude much greater than had ever occurred.

Cultellus will, of course, claim that this is all a horrible lie, but they had to remove their posts in order to make their post hoc claim sound legitimate - which it is not. Ask yourself why any board participant with integrity or honesty would do such a thing. They would not.

Unfortunately for Cultellus, enough of his early posts are preserved in the replies of others, if you want to search for them. This also irks Cultellus, as it exposes their disingenuousness. And this is why Cultellus is ‘training’ you, for lack of a better term.

With that history being what it is, I now am genuinely curious as to your take on this behavior. Thus my question to you: Regardless of you having missed the early phase of Cultellus’s spamming multiple threads with over 300 posts having nothing to do with claimed injustices perpetrated against one active board member months ago, do you feel that Cultellus’s actions are sensible, reasonable, or conducive to better board operations?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Soft open.

The camera floats shot around door jamb into a dark room. The shot squares on a figure seated at a small desk, lit only by the monitor.

The man is nude, save the adult Depends he’s wearing.

The camera floats to the man, the shot rests to the left.

The screen is open to 4chan/pol, with tabs opened to Twitter, Facebook, a little known supremacist hate site, and discussmormonism.com.

Cultellus stares at the screen. His diaper is cold. The feces and urine have mixed, creating a cold, wet sludge in his diaper. Some of it leaks into his chair, long since ruined since Cutellus discovered the comfort of soiling himself - he understands this is a problem, but figures he never properly processed his potty training phase.

He closes the 4chan thread. He’s seen all the urine and scat fetish pictures he can handle for the day. He makes a mental note to masturbate in the shower later before his wife gets home. His claims of incontinence are wearing thin with her - she’s repulsed, but is trying to be an understanding partner.

If she only knew.

He closes the Twitter, Facebook, and hate site tabs.

He stares at the discussmormonism.com screen.

A sense of giddiness swells in his chest.

He craps himself a little. The warmth is a welcome respite.

Log-in

Username: Cultellus

Password: *************

His heart rate quickens a little.

*clicks*

Spirit Paradise.

Makes mental note to erase his posting history. He gets nervous. craps himself a little. There’s no relief this time

This time, there’s only anger.

The camera pulls back slowly, and reverses the shot out of the room.

As the screen fades to black some white words appear:

The troll has been trolled.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

This post was an option for you - no doubt it is where you are most comfortable and confident.

Understand, you do have another option (still do) - You can consider the challenges that have been made.

I’m sorry, I’m not fluent in passive-aggressive babble. When you grow up you can try again with real words and exact language.



- Doc

[Jersey Girl]

Everybody get it out of your system. With any luck, there's going to be one or more new sheriffs in town. Let's not carry this fiasco, fussing, feuding, and overall Festivus-ing into the future. Unless, of course, you post it into the appropriate forum!

[Jersey Girl]

He stares at the discussmormonism.com screen.


Log-in

Username: Cultellus

Password: *************

Res Ipsa, is this trolling and a joke? Or trolling and not a joke? How would you describe your client's approach here?

Art.

[canpakes]

Res Ipsa, is this trolling and a joke? Or trolling and not a joke? How would you describe your client's approach here?

Art.

Lol. Poor Cultellus. He tries hard to play a game wherein he is solidly, publicly, repeatedly outclassed.

[Res Ipsa]

Cultellus, from the sincere bottom of my heart, I do not care whether you like me or not. I do not care whether you trust me or not. I've spent a career speaking to people that I neither like nor trust, and I'm sure I'm not universally loved and trusted by all the lawyers who know me. Yet, we all get things done on behalf of our clients, whether we like or trust each other or not. We talk on the phone, we write letters, we file briefs, we coordinate discovery, and we settle cases. The judge doesn't care whether we like or trust each other. The jury doesn't care. The client doesn't care, as long as I represent him or her professionally and ethically.

Similarly, I have conversations all the time with folks here, whether I like or trust them. It makes no never mind to me. If they bother me enough on a personal level, I stop interacting with them. If interacting with them pisses me off, I put them on ignore. I have no ego invested in whether anyone likes me or trusts me. I really don't care.

I hope Shades simply points out the error of your ways and tells you to go your way and sin no more.

Look at that. Another thing we agree on.

I feel I can disclose this point. I am not sure it is cool to do disclose this. But on this point of agreement, I have offered to take ANY (emphasis not yelling like Philo) direction from Shades, including a request to walk away. I do not take the B.S. from Doc Cam lightly and I did not break the rules accidentally.

And you sound like a gross person. Jesus. I guess that works though. Compartmentalization is a thing.

As is projection. I don't think you understand compartmentalization. It's the thing that allowed you to claim that you insulting me would be fine and dandy but that me insulting you would be bad. The evidence of compartmentalization is general inconsistency across different cases. If you believe I'm being inconsistent, please quote me and I'll tell you what I think.

As I read the rules, if you are the source of what you posted, you are fine. What would be prohibited is posting about any response you received from Shades.

You have, however, put your finger on a fundamental disagreement that we have. Shades is not responsible for making decisions for you about how to conduct yourself in the forum. He is not responsible for telling you to stay or go. You, and only you, are responsible for how you behave here. Full stop. You keep trying to put the responsibility for your own conduct on others. That's evidenced by your inability to justify your own intentional violation of the rules here without talking about some other poster, mostly Doc Cam. You know how to type the words "I take full responsibility for my actions," but you haven't shown any evidence that you know how to do it. You posts show a serious boundary problem -- an inability to distinguish what you are responsible for and what others are responsible for. Your offer to Shades simply confirms the existence of the problem.

You intentionally broke the rules here. That's on you. Not Doc Cam, not me, not Shades. That's all you.
Doc Cam is responsible for his own posting, not you, not me, not canpakes not Shades. Just Doc Cam.
Shades is responsible for enforcing the rules he set. Whether and how he does so is up to him and anyone he appoints as moderator. I am neither Shades no a moderator. You are neither Shades nor a moderator.

It's not hard to figure out, but you have some work to do there.

[Jersey Girl]

Art.

Oh “F” yes! Perfect. Thank you. Trolling is art, Res Ipsa.

So is bullshitting but you're not particularly good at either.

[Lem]

[In response to RI ]
Oh. Right. Right. Got it. Right.

I am really bad at this and all you all are really good at this and the guy that posted the trolling art and the shot in the head dead black woman stuff and the 4Chan stuff and the cocksucker stuff is the best at it - true art.

I am so damned convinced.

Should we count this as agreement or disagreement?

Neither. Just more posting that is best characterized as trolling.

[ceeboo]

This post was an option for you - no doubt it is where you are most comfortable and confident.

Understand, you do have another option (still do) - You can consider the challenges that have been made.

I’m sorry, I’m not fluent in passive-aggressive babble. When you grow up you can try again with real words and exact language.



- Doc

Very well.

Are you a board bully? Do you use specific tools (weapons as I see it) to intentionally try to hurt, mock, insult and inflict pain upon another person? Does the bully in you get more bullyish when you feel intellectually superior and/or with someone who doesn't really like to engage bullies but you don't recognize this and you confidently believe that they are simply a weak target?

When posting to a LDS person (or one you think is LDS) do you pull out the LDS prophet pictures and include your "artistic" writings for the expressed purpose to hurt, mock, insult and inflict pain upon another person?

When you're posting to a Christian, Do you use a different weapon (pictures of Jesus with your "artistic" writings) for the sole and intended purpose of hurting someone, mocking their personal beliefs and insulting another person's personal beliefs?

When attacking a politically conservative person, do you use yet another weapon in an attempt to wildly broad brush every single conservative into one of your KKK, racist, 4chan, Maga-hat, nazi crap and other disgusting things that you do use with the sole purpose being to pigeon hole (with more of your pics) and arrogantly condemn, insult and attack their personal political views?

Do you flippantly call people "retards" with the sole and expressed purpose to paint them as a buffoon while never even considering or caring how many families face the enormous daily challenges when having a loved one with a disability?

I have more but I think those questions should at least provide you a brief moment to consider the challenges that have been made.