2024 IOTY Repository

[fed up]

Soundy if you post a DM it will be an act of Harikari and lead to a long if not permanent ban.

I think we have the second nomination here.

 

[Crankycorner]

Well I was nominated for the 2023 award by someone with a clear vendetta. Direct quotes were not used and what I said was taken completely out of context.

I would complain but then posters decided to spend a full week arguing about rules, standing orders and other pointless shite.

So I’m safe in the knowledge that keeping quiet and letting the real idiots prove just how idiotic they were/are was the best course of action.

 

[Chara021]

I did NOT paraphrase what she said. That is a direct quote of what she said. Only direct quotes, not partial sentences, should be permitted imho

It was a partial sentence.
And it was taken out of context to the whole point she was making to boot. Someone might relay a point they are making in one sentence and in the very next sentence reiterate the very point by an added explanation which is crucial to the point being made.

Again just saying

 

[SoundMan]

Soundy if you post a DM it will be an act of Harikari and lead to a long if not permanent ban.

I think we have the second nomination here.

Just put up the quote of the post you find to be idiotic FU - it's not really that complicated

 

[Matlock]

You're arguing a legal point with a qualified solicitor who practiced for years. What are your legal credentials?

Soundy refuses to accept my qualification.

I did suggest that you were an honest broker who could confirm this to him, but he won't do that either.

 

[SoundMan]

It was a partial sentence.
And it was taken out of context to the whole point she was making to boot. Someone might relay a point they are making in one sentence and in the very next sentence reiterate the very point by an added explanation which is crucial to the point being made.

Again just saying

How you can come to that conclusion is astounding. I posted up her entire post - it was NOT a partial sentence, and it was not even a partial quote. Here it is again, in it's entirety





Matlock said:
"Car theft and murder are two entirely different offences so suspecting someone of murder on the basis of a car theft conviction would not be reasonable.

Beating a woman until she is injured to the extent that she is hospitalised and beating a woman until she is dead are not entirely different offences. Different severity, but same offence. So it was reasonable for the guards to suspect him.

The guards treatment of him was not reasonable, but no one has argued that it was."

 

[Matlock]

How you can come to that conclusion is astounding. I posted up her entire post - it was NOT a partial sentence, and it was not even a partial quote. Here it is again, in it's entirety





Matlock said:
"Car theft and murder are two entirely different offences so suspecting someone of murder on the basis of a car theft conviction would not be reasonable.

Beating a woman until she is injured to the extent that she is hospitalised and beating a woman until she is dead are not entirely different offences. Different severity, but same offence. So it was reasonable for the guards to suspect him.

The guards treatment of him was not reasonable, but no one has argued that it was."

The same offence of violence towards a woman. Everyone else seems to have managed to grasp that.

But facts don't matter to you, as this is clearly just a vendetta. Imagine being so rattled that you have to start your IOTY planning in January...

 

[Chara021]

Just put up the quote of the post you find to be idiotic FU - it's not really that complicated

You may need to allow people subsequently agree or disagree. Just to be fair to the poster being roasted like.

Someone's nomination could accrue 2 thumbs up and 10 thumbs down. Which would be a fairer indication what is truly idiotic or not.

More like a Proc democracy. If there could actually be such a thing

 

[Chara021]

How you can come to that conclusion is astounding. I posted up her entire post - it was NOT a partial sentence, and it was not even a partial quote. Here it is again, in it's entirety





Matlock said:
"Car theft and murder are two entirely different offences so suspecting someone of murder on the basis of a car theft conviction would not be reasonable.

Beating a woman until she is injured to the extent that she is hospitalised and beating a woman until she is dead are not entirely different offences. Different severity, but same offence. So it was reasonable for the guards to suspect him.

The guards treatment of him was not reasonable, but no one has argued that it was."

I was going by your highlighted parts.

 

[Carmona]

You're arguing a legal point with a qualified solicitor who practiced for years. What are your legal credentials?

Are you suggesting that that is a little idiotic?