T1B

Van wrote:You're a complete fucking dirtbag, and the worst kind of moral fraud.

I don't get it, Van. You've been posting on these boards for over a decade, and you still make judgments about the morals of people you've never met based solely on what they post here? Most folks with skin that thin woulda bailed long ago. Was what Wags posted vile, distasteful, humorless, and classless? Absolutely. Had no relevance whatsoever to the subject of the thread, and was completely uncalled for. It referred to perhaps the worst time of your REAL life and not to your board existence. Criticize it as harshly as you want, and I'll completely agree with you.

But to use it as evidence of one's moral makeup and character is fallacious. You might be right - WW might be a moral fraud and might be a complete fucking dirtbag. But neither you nor I know that. If he were to submit hundreds or thousands of similar posts, we still wouldn't know. IT'S JUST A MESSAGE BOARD! I realize you are somewhat different (in a number of ways) from most folks here because if we are to believe you (and I do), your persona on the board is similar to who you really are. But that's the exception rather than the rule. I doubt that it's a stretch to say nearly everyone else here, to a large extent, is much different IRL than how they portray themselves here. I'll use a phrase that I detest, but please tell me you knew.

I'm not defending WW. He submitted a horrible post. But you're jumping to unfounded conclusions, and I guess I figured you were smarter than that. I know you think you're smarter than that. Maybe we're both wrong.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Van wrote:You're a complete fucking dirtbag, and the worst kind of moral fraud.

I don't get it, Van. You've been posting on these boards for over a decade, and you still make judgments about the morals of people you've never met based solely on what they post here?

On that score? Yes. That far transcended "board smack." He made a conscious, highly immoral decision to say the most vile thing possible...and for what? There was no provocation whatsoever, it wasn't even the least bit funny, and he's among the last people on the entire board who should've said something like that.

Most folks with skin that thin woulda bailed long ago.

Like you said, I've been here over a decade. In all that time no one has ever said something that vile to me, and I'm not sure I've ever read something that awful by anyone. Hell, considering the context in which Wags said that, I'm not even sure TVO has ever said something so reprehensible...to anyone.

Was what Wags posted vile, distasteful, humorless, and classless? Absolutely. Had no relevance whatsoever to the subject of the thread, and was completely uncalled for. It referred to perhaps the worst time of your REAL life and not to your board existence. Criticize it as harshly as you want, and I'll completely agree with you.

But to use it as evidence of one's moral makeup and character is fallacious.

Bullshit. What is morality? It's knowing right from wrong, and having the integrity to choose what's right while eschewing that which you know to be wrong.

He knew it was wrong, and he chose to do it anyway. That's a cut and dried indictment of his morals. You are what you do, and why you do something means everything.

You might be right - WW might be a moral fraud and might be a complete fucking dirtbag. But neither you nor I know that. If he were to submit hundreds or thousands of similar posts, we still wouldn't know. IT'S JUST A MESSAGE BOARD! I realize you are somewhat different (in a number of ways) from most folks here because if we are to believe you (and I do), your persona on the board is similar to who you really are. But that's the exception rather than the rule. I doubt that it's a stretch to say nearly everyone else here, to a large extent, is much different IRL than how they portray themselves here. I'll use a phrase that I detest, but please tell me you knew.

Irrelevant. Wags knows the truth. Your generalities have no bearing on this specific situation.

I'm not defending WW. He submitted a horrible post. But you're jumping to unfounded conclusions, and I guess I figured you were smarter than that. I know you think you're smarter than that. Maybe we're both wrong.

Maybe you're trying so hard to be the reasonable sage that you can't see the forest for the trees. What he said wasn't business as usual on a smack board. It was a decision he made that absolutely indicates a disgusting lack of moral integrity. He knew exactly what he was saying, and he knew the effect it would have, yet he chose to say it anyway. It was highly un-Christian, with its sole purpose being to inflict hurt on a personal level. It had nothing to do with message boards. If you don't see it that way, well, you're wrong. There are no gray areas here, and the "message board" cop out will not fly.

Van wrote:Yep, you truly are a dirtbag.

Am not!



Look, man... the line was in truly bad taste. I already said it was my bad. My excuse? None whatsoever. Cut a drunk some slack.

Van wrote:That far transcended "board smack." He made a conscious, highly immoral decision to say the most vile thing possible...and for what?

My guess would be for entertainment (fail), to put the real life vs ballgame juxtaposition into perspective (fail), and to piss you off (pass with flying colors). And while it certainly may appear that many folks here post while unconscious, I'm pretty sure that everything posted here is the result of conscious decisions. He didn't accuse you of committing any felonies, didn't post anything that could have lasting repercussions (other than emotional, and YOU can control that), and essentially just tried to get under your thin skin, albeit in a most tasteless manner. Still, it has nothing to do with morality except in the most exaggerated sense.

There are no gray areas here, and the "message board" cop out will not fly.

Sure it will. How can it not? Can you successfully argue that this is something more than just a message board? If you're gonna try to make this a moral issue (which you're failing miserably at, btw), then most of what gets posted here is immoral if the standard is the Golden Rule, meaning much of what you post is also immoral.

But stay up there on your moral pedestal if that makes you feel any better.

Smackie, I'm not failing miserably at anything here. I gave you the definition of morality, and I correctly applied it to his actions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈra-lə-tē, mȯ-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural mo·ral·i·ties
Date: 14th century
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : virtue

His decision may absolutely be weighed on a morals-based basis.

You? You've done nothing here but stamp your feet and say, "Nuh-uh! It's just a message board!"

That's an entirely piss-poor argument in the face of a factual claim, and all your smugness to the contrary will not alter that outcome in your favor.

You have nothing.

You also have no basis by which to claim that I'm guilty of doing the same thing here. None. Zero. So until you provide evidence of my having done something similar, or something immoral at all, go ahead and shove that one up your ass as well.

As to your other "It's all just a message board!" argument, what I told him wasn't mentioned on this mesage board, and he knew full well that it was never to be used as message board fodder. Is it my fault for telling him anything anywhere? Yes, it is. Does it make it any less immoral of him to use it against me on a message board? Absolutely, it does.

Should your friend Deb ever decide to post here, do you think I would be out of bounds in using the things you and she have told me about her situation as ammunition to offend her? I don't know about you, but I sure as hell think I would be way out of bounds to use things told to me in 'confidence' during Chat as fair game to try to kill her with them here.

If you don't agree, well, you're an asshole. I don't know, maybe you are, yet I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't appreciate my spouting off about her here, nor would she, and you both would be absolutely correct to consider that stuff out of bounds.

What Wags did goes far beyond that, and fuck yes, it makes him a dirtbag. I don't care that he was drunk. Being drunk merely loosens one's tongue; it doesn't put thoughts into one's head that weren't already there.

Van wrote:Being drunk merely loosens one's tongue; it doesn't put thoughts into one's head that weren't already there.

How would you know ? You've never been drunk.

I've never been on the moon either, yet I know there ain't much air there, and I've never had my fist up Adriana Lima's ass, yet I know I want it there.

Van wrote:I've never been on the moon either, yet I know there ain't much air there, and I've never had my fist up Adriana Lima's ass, yet I know I want it there.

Well I'm not going to argue with you, you're always right - even when you're wrong. I am sorry your feelings got hurt in this thread.

I'm sure deep down Wags is a good, decent man, and not a total dirtbag. I've done dirtbag things while drunk. While "I was drunk" is no excuse at all, often times the shit I said or did - never crossed my mind - until I was drunk.

When you're drunk, "seems like a good idea at the time" overules good judgement. In fact, judgement goes right out the window and sociopathic tendencies rule the day.

Van wrote:On that score? Yes. That far transcended "board smack." He made a conscious, highly immoral decision to say the most vile thing possible...and for what? There was no provocation whatsoever, it wasn't even the least bit funny, and he's among the last people on the entire board who should've said something like that.

The most vile thing possible? You obviously were not around for the breakup of Elba. Shit, I've had worse things said to me.

Try again, Tom. Alcohol is a depressant, not a hallucinogen, so you can make all the excuses you want for Wags and for whatever dumb shit you did back when you were drinking; it won't change scientific fact. When you do stupid things due to being drunk, it simply means your inhibitions were lowered. Beer limited Wags's self-edit function; it didn't create something that wasn't there.

And backpedaing by blaming something on being drunk is a fucking pussy move anyway, especially on the internet where no one knows if that was really even the case. Dins is the only one who gets to use that excuse, and only to explain away those nasty chocolate mustaches.

BSmack wrote:

Van wrote:On that score? Yes. That far transcended "board smack." He made a conscious, highly immoral decision to say the most vile thing possible...and for what? There was no provocation whatsoever, it wasn't even the least bit funny, and he's among the last people on the entire board who should've said something like that.

The most vile thing possible? You obviously were not around for the breakup of Elba. Shit, I've had worse things said to me.

B, not likely; not if you knew what Wags was referencing.

Van wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Van wrote:On that score? Yes. That far transcended "board smack." He made a conscious, highly immoral decision to say the most vile thing possible...and for what? There was no provocation whatsoever, it wasn't even the least bit funny, and he's among the last people on the entire board who should've said something like that.

The most vile thing possible? You obviously were not around for the breakup of Elba. Shit, I've had worse things said to me.

B, not likely; not if you knew what Wags was referencing.

Well it looks to me like you entered into an ill advised relationship that went south in a fairly awful way. You then compounded the bad relationship by confiding in at least one or more people on the Internet.

Am I missing anything?

Yes, B, you're missing everything. Wags wasn't referring to the marriage. He was referring to how it ended, which is all he knows.

Trust me, if all he was doing was bagging on a relationship gone sour, it'd be no big deal. I wouldn't be ripping him, Smackie wouldn't have ripped him the way he did, S_M wouldn't have come back in here to call him stupid after finding out what Wags was really referencing, and Wags himself wouldn't be admitting that he royally fucked up...but only due to being drunk, of course.

Van wrote:Try again, Tom.

Nah. Waste of time.

Yes, it would be. Science doesn't support your argument, and I don't care to hear your anecdotal excuses and rationalizations.

Van wrote:Yes, it would be. Science doesn't support your argument, and I don't care to hear your anecdotal excuses and rationalizations.

http://www.chemcases.com/alcohol/alc-07.htm



Trying to make peace between two cool dudes.

Have a nice day Van.

Did you even read your own list there, Tom? It confirmed what I said while completely refuting your claim.

Van wrote:Did you read your own list there, Tom? It merely confirmed what I said while refuting what you claim.

I did. You're a genius. What can I say. I can live with the fact my posts, "anecdotal" evidence or what not have little to no bearing on your life and message boarding experience.

It's cool.

OK, after being full apprised of what Wags was talking about, I have to say....

Jesus Christ Wags. WTF were you thinking? Do you really hate to get beat in an argument that much?

Come on man, step up and own it. Don't hide behind the bottle.

I don't think anyone would make a whole lot of Wagon's comment ... if Van hadn't gone ballistic over it.
But NOW, because of the shitstorm, it will continue to be referenced way into the future.

When I read it, I noted it and just passed by it.
I sure don't care if Van had a failed marriage, any more than I care that Roger is a drug-addled wheelchair gimp.

Wagon was lit and he made a bad (bad for Van but good for board entertainment :)) decision.

Van, you fucked up, you trusted him.

I think the main question here is for the administrators.
Did War Wagon cross the "personal info" boundary?

Maybe a little cloudy, but I think not.

Rather than talk any shit and slither around this thing, Whitey should prolly give a sincere apology to Van and then be done with this thing.


my .02

Oh this was something said in confidence ? Not a part of "board folklore" ?

Seems so, Tom.

That's unfortunate.

Van, you're clowning.

Alcohol doesn't effect decision making beyond whether to go through with it or not?

It doesn't put misplaced, out-of-character thoughts in a person's head?

Whatever "science" you're trying to cite here is failing you miserably.

Easily disproved. How many people are cited (in addition to the other 95+% that aren't) for DUI in a year? Tens (hundreds?) of thousands? Not one of those people are ignorant to the fact it's akin to firing a gun into a crowd of people -- it's criminally negligent, and deadly. But it's your contention that the only role alcohol played was loosening them up enough to unleash their inner psychotic, sociopathic killer?

Epic fail, dude. You're clearly ill-equipped to adress the subject, Tom is overqualified.

Just stop. You're not a "little wrong" here. You're flirting with having the word "wrong" changed to "van" in your "honor" here.


But you sure fell for the urban legend they used to sell in high school health class.

Having not taken a drink of alcohol (in any form) for 7.5 years vs. 15 years of more or less insanely drinking and drunk. I know the difference. The physical changes, the emotional changes, the mental changes, and yes - the spiritual changes. :D

One of my biggest hurdles is the inability to express myself well via the written word. I take responsibility for the misunderstanding between Van and me.

Van was clearly harmed here since the knowledge was acquired via personal trust. I think Van was politely reminding me to mind my own fucking business. I think I'll take his sage advice.


PEACE

Van wrote:When you do stupid things due to being drunk, it simply means your inhibitions were lowered. Beer limited Wags's self-edit function; it didn't create something that wasn't there.

You've never been drunk or even tasted alcohol, yet you know exactly what was going thru my mind when I posted that?

Alrighty, so what was there then. What are these "dirbag" impulses you think I'm carrying around towards you?

I'll tell you that there are none. I think you're one helluva poster and have a great deal of respect for you, even though we disagree on any number of things.

And backpedaing by blaming something on being drunk is a fucking pussy move anyway, especially on the internet where no one knows if that was really even the case.

No backpedal, no excuses... I stated the fact.

I'll say it again for the 3rd time in case you missed it the first 2 times. My bad. That's like an apology, saying you're sorry and stuff. I seldom even have to apologize to my wife 3 times.

But if that's not good enough for you, oh well. It's all I've got. You can divorce me if you want, but I get the fucking SRV collection.

Well I'm intrigued. I was learning about baseball - then it turns out Van was a leading character in Jane Eyre.

poptart wrote:I don't think anyone would make a whole lot of Wagon's comment ... if Van hadn't gone ballistic over it.

That's only due to the fact that very few people here know what he was referencing.

When I read it, I noted it and just passed by it. I sure don't care if Van had a failed marriage, any more than I care that Roger is a drug-addled wheelchair gimp.

Like I said, very few people here know what he was referencing, and you're obviously one of them.

pop, he wasn't talking about any failed marriage. He was referencing a private conversation we had in Chat about SRV, the significance of my avatar, and the song "Pride and Joy," which is what my first wife, Angelina, was listening to when she was killed by a drunk driver who passed out, crossed the center line and hit her car head-on as she was returning home from the market.

"Pride and Joy" was her favorite song, and it was the last thing she ever heard before some asshole took her from this world. Wags knew full well not to use that as message board fodder, and I was totally stunned to see him throw it out there last night...completely unprovoked.

Van, you fucked up, you trusted him.

Yep.

I think the main question here is for the administrators.
Did War Wagon cross the "personal info" boundary?

I'm not even an Admin, and I can answer that one: No, he didn't. He didn't reveal any personal info about me, at least not of the type you're referencing. That rule has to do with names, phone numbers, addresses, pictures, etc. On that count, he's fine.

Rather than talk any shit and slither around this thing, Whitey should prolly give a sincere apology to Van and then be done with this thing.

No need. I'll never again have anything to do with him. He's just fortunate he's only playing Drunken Internet Pussy. If he ever said that to my face, he'd find out right quick whether there really is an afterlife.

BTW -- cracking on people's tragically killed spouses, cracking on people's kids' birth defects...

WTF is wrong with some of you people?Jeebus, I used to want to be known as the biggest A-hole on this board -- but some of you have set that bar low enough that I don't want any part of that superlative title.

Dang, what happened to ever-more clever ways of accusing your nemesis of being homosexual? I didn't sign up for this "BWAHAHAHA!!!! You're wife got BODED by a drunk driver, and your kid is retarded... BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!" shit.

That ain't smack -- it's fucking sick.

Van wrote:pop, he wasn't talking about any failed marriage. He was referencing a private conversation we had in Chat about SRV, the significance of my avatar, and the song "Pride and Joy," which is what my first wife, Angelina, was listening to when she was killed by a drunk driver who passed out, crossed the center line and hit her car head-on as she was returning home from the market.

Yikes.


Just consider it 'BODE, Van.

The fact that you'd fruster Wagon so badly that he'd wanna "smack" about such a thing.


This is ugly.

Van, you're really overreacting.

sucks to hear about yr wife, van. i couldn't imagine.

though on a lighter note: i'd never share any personal tragedies with the fruit cakes on here, especially the ones name dropping jesus. ('born again' isn't so much about humility as it is being an asshole since someone's already taken the bullet for you.)

oh ja, the lighter note: remember jon=bitch got a sad and posted about his lady dumping him for a mcdonald's fry cook? that went well for him.

M Club, I sat on that info for over ten years. I only brought it up recently in Chat due to the circumstances, including the people involved. I figured that after all this time, we - meaning the collective 'we' of this longstanding community we have here, most of whom are well over the novelty of 'smack' - were past this sort of juvenile nonsense.

You're right, I should've never said anything. pop says I should feel like I earned 'bode. Fuck that. All I gained was a visceral appreciation for just how pathetic some people really are.

Van wrote:What was so charming about dicking an easy call, thus killing a kid's perfect game?

That wasn't charming. It was ugly, unfortunate and preventable.

If umpiring was so easy, dumbfucks like you would be working the games. Yeah, it was a bad call. Not the first bad call, nor will it be the last. It's baseball, and, like it or not, bad calls are part of the game. Must you overreact to everything? Yeah, I guess so.

Following this season it will be the last time that call happens, because next season there will be instant replay to address that sort of ridiculous error to end a game.

Sorry if baseball will lose some of its "charm" for you when the correct calls are made. Actually, no I'm not. You're kind of an idiot, and your position on this issue is completely out of touch with the realities of TV and modern technology in general.

Getting the call right is entirely possible, and it ought to be the main priority. Your typically milquetoast bumper sticker 'thoughts' will once again be noted and summarily dismissed.

War Wagon wrote:Van, you're really overreacting.

You really are not the one qualified to make that assertion.

Dinsdale wrote: Not one of those people are ignorant to the fact it's akin to firing a gun into a crowd of people

How dangerous do you think DUI is? It would have to be an awfully small crowd or a pretty shitty gun.

it's criminally negligent

There is a lot of ignorance in our laws. So what?

deadly

How deadly and to whom?

Van wrote: All I gained was a visceral appreciation for just how pathetic some people really are.

Van's 1st wife was killed by a driving drunk.
Before he told WW about it, he should have thunk.

My apologies to Van and Mal.

Moving Sale wrote:

Van wrote: All I gained was a visceral appreciation for just how pathetic some people really are.

Van's 1st wife was killed by a driving drunk.
Before he told WW about it, he should have thunk.

My apologies to Van and Mal.

Mal?

Van wrote: Mal?

The poster I so shamelessly stole my old nic from.
He used to do these awesome rhyming couplets* of deathsmack.

*Maybe they were not couplets but they were one of those poemy things.