is proving my point? Or if you honestly believe anyone would care about this stupid fucking moron hugbox enough to sue you for slander, you're dumber than I thought. Anyways, I'll see you crazy kids when I hate myself enough again.
[Rant] dave you do realize that deleting every mention of (redacted)
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Dave
Staff member
In every case what did I send you as a message? Did I say, "Hey, man! We don't allow that kind of thing here!" Nope. My message EVERY TIME was, "Open another thread."
In other words, you can say what you gotta say, just not allowing you to spread shit in other threads. If you want to talk about Bowie doing what he did knock yourself out. I'm not stopping you from doing it. Just not there. I let you have your say about the man and left it up there, but the thread is a Brazelton, not a "rape culture" thread. If that's the conversation you want to have let's have it here![DOUBLEPOST=1452543258,1452543217][/DOUBLEPOST]And I HAVE been threatened with lawsuits before, hence the "free ranged chicken" comment.
In other words, you can say what you gotta say, just not allowing you to spread shit in other threads. If you want to talk about Bowie doing what he did knock yourself out. I'm not stopping you from doing it. Just not there. I let you have your say about the man and left it up there, but the thread is a Brazelton, not a "rape culture" thread. If that's the conversation you want to have let's have it here![DOUBLEPOST=1452543258,1452543217][/DOUBLEPOST]And I HAVE been threatened with lawsuits before, hence the "free ranged chicken" comment.
See you tomorrow.
How about never?
Dave
Staff member
He put that in there because he thought I was censoring every Bowie reference. I was...in other threads. All he had to do was start a new thread and we'd have been on our merry way. But he posted at least three more times in the RIP thread, got threadbanned from there, then he posted in the TIL thread. Since he was going to keep briganding, I shut that down as well, each time with a note to him that read, "Open another thread."
He apparently would rather shit on other threads than to start his own so he left. If he comes back he's welcome to continue discussing David Bowie's ALLEGED predilections here.
He apparently would rather shit on other threads than to start his own so he left. If he comes back he's welcome to continue discussing David Bowie's ALLEGED predilections here.
I think you hit the nail on the head about his posting in general.
Agreed. I wish it was just a dark moment in history, but it's unfortunately still a thing. From what I understand, Jared Leto been known to be involved with it. And James Franco was caught toeing the line. While it's not Roman Polanski or Bill Cosby levels of awful, it shouldn't be acceptable, either.
GasBandit
Staff member
Aren't we under some sort of contractual obligation to make sure this picture shows up in any thread pertaining to this subject?
[DOUBLEPOST=1452555916,1452555721][/DOUBLEPOST]
We know what we know.
Proof is kind of hard to come by, however, 40 years down the road and when nobody involved considers themselves a victim, regardless of statute.
I don't see where anybody said that. That said...
Here as in so many other situations, there's what you know, and what you can prove.
We know what we know.
Proof is kind of hard to come by, however, 40 years down the road and when nobody involved considers themselves a victim, regardless of statute.
I read that interview and my heart breaks for that girl. She has no clue how wrong those "relationships" were. One questionable interview doesn't prove who she did or didn't sleep with of course, but the way that she thinks its ok it pretty scary.
Dave
Staff member
Nope. Just not in every thread, which is what he was going to do. We can have the discussion.
I think he's taken issue with your wording from the other thread:
Makes it not seem like he can have this discussion.
Deleting the post from the TIL thread would seem to indicate otherwise.
Dave
Staff member
In its own thread it's fine, but he was going to start polluting other threads in retaliation. So I stopped it before it happened.
I must have missed something. If Charlie pissed off Bowie, and Charlie's leaving, why is Bowie leaving?
I missed his post and thought I was going to have to explain to you how death works.
Dave
Staff member
Bowie posted in the ... Bowie thread and I deleted it as well with a note that all discussion on the topic was going to be removed. He was mad that I left Charlie's initial post, but I thought that it was fitting in the thread. What I felt was NOT fitting was turning a Brazelton thread into a debate about rape culture.. That's this thread. 
This is for CDS btw, not Bowie
A more relevant discussion is why someone whose stated reason for their presence from the very beginning of this board was malice, and malice alone, has apparently gone without sanction.
He keeps taking his ball and going home once the blowback reaches critical mass. But to these eyes, nothing has been done to lock the door behind him, and he keeps coming back to take a big steaming dump on the dining room table in the middle of dinner.
I do not have the mod power, and perhaps that's a good thing. Because in this case, the body of work would warrant summary execution. So to speak.
There, I've said it.
He keeps taking his ball and going home once the blowback reaches critical mass. But to these eyes, nothing has been done to lock the door behind him, and he keeps coming back to take a big steaming dump on the dining room table in the middle of dinner.
I do not have the mod power, and perhaps that's a good thing. Because in this case, the body of work would warrant summary execution. So to speak.
There, I've said it.
Because unless he's directly harassing people, then who cares? If you don't like his posts, ignore him.
Because that just encourages him. He's admitted to getting off on having people ignore him.
And most important of all, I am not the one whose behavior is unrepentantly unacceptable. Why should I have to be the one to change to accommodate someone whose only purpose is disruption? No. Enough is enough.
What makes me shake my head about Charlie's reaction, though, is that David Bowie worked very hard throughout his life to be who he felt he was at any given time, and was a very popular public idol giving other people permission to be who they were in a time where society was continuing to break free from its social mores.
He didn't argue with people about the acceptability for individuals to be who they felt they needed to be, and try to white knight for others. He simply set an example, and those who had and have been disenfranchised by society felt some level of acceptance due to his work.
Of course he made bad decisions along the way, and took advantage of others - but honestly, we all do at various stages of our lives, though perhaps to different levels of severity depending largely on external factors.
Dismissing his work and the effect he's had on society because he's done some terrible things along the way isn't wrong, but it essentially means you cannot accept anyone's work or contributions to society.
It's a very isolating, and lonely, standard to hold.
He didn't argue with people about the acceptability for individuals to be who they felt they needed to be, and try to white knight for others. He simply set an example, and those who had and have been disenfranchised by society felt some level of acceptance due to his work.
Of course he made bad decisions along the way, and took advantage of others - but honestly, we all do at various stages of our lives, though perhaps to different levels of severity depending largely on external factors.
Dismissing his work and the effect he's had on society because he's done some terrible things along the way isn't wrong, but it essentially means you cannot accept anyone's work or contributions to society.
It's a very isolating, and lonely, standard to hold.
Last edited:
Aw, I was in the mood for a good debate! He didn't say what I've posited he's done but his actions certainly suggest that he wants to double make sure that no one praises David Bowie without being very, very, very aware of his actions.
All he said was:
But to then spend time posting repeatedly in the two threads about what a terrible person David Bowie was suggested, at least to me, that Charlie felt David Bowie's misdeeds greatly overshadowed his deeds.
I accept the strawman charge, though, because I am certainly interpreting his actions through my own filters and biases, and he has clearly stated that he celebrates some of David Bowie's work. It still makes me shake my head, but it is a strawman argument.
Last edited:
We are going to need more clarification for when someone is discussing David Bowie v. @Bowielee in these posts, especially as it relates to @Charlie Don't Surf and censorship on the boards.
My brain hurts from context switching.
--Patrick
Whoever said they're different people?