Dragon

Seems like nobody has an answer to this.

You are avoiding the issue.

Why are the ChatGuides and ForumHosts sitting by and doing nothing about it?

You deliberately misinterpret everything I say, as usual.

As I have repeatedly asked on various threads, why is some people allowed to abuse,  while others are banned?

Martin doesn’t read my messages, hasn’t for years.

He doesn’t police the chatrooms anyway.

“Calling a gay man a fag isn’t a legitimate example of hate speech”

So this was the first mesages that appeared in the chat log when I signed in today:

How many examples do you want me to post before you admit that there is a problem?

They were banned, you say?
This was the first message in the chat log when I signed in:

I would also ask that you state why any such benfit was not already offered by the members only room.

I’ve yet to see a single argument as to why banning guests would be a good idea.

Please decribe how it has improved chat.

“Less abuse” is not an acceptable answer, I am insulted every time a enter a room (if there is anyone online).

So was I

Wait, who is Mr Fishy that he can give out accounts?

This isn’t new btw.

It’s always been like this for me.

It is ok when the ingroup does it to the outgroup.

Its is not ok when the outgroup does it to the ingroup.

You won’t get one.

If they actually intended to talk about biological race, then they said that non-white people:

1. Are reliant on others (presumably for everything)
2. Can not think rationally
3. Don’t understand ownership of property
4. Don’t understand how time works

The modern use of “white supremacy” doesn’t have anything to do with race, it’s about the political concept of “whiteness”, which is pseduo-intelletual babbel trying to cover for the the lunatics that have been running arround for years calling eveything racist.

This Smithsonian published (unironically) a poster that fairly accurately describes…[Read more]

Except for when it is allowed.