lol, Fazle charging for access to the MAIN FORUM - Page 2

nbiggershaft · 03-31-2008, 01:24 AM

I never bothered much with the main forum anyways. I am pissed that they removed access to the sports forum though. There is no justification for that one. Peace out OT.

7960 · 03-31-2008, 01:44 AM

I'm working Joe_Cool in OnTopic to see if I can get banned....he's sent two PMs asking why I'm being a dick in the gay marriage/polygamy thread. I sent back "because you're a dick." We'll see how long I last. I never liked him, even when I was a mod.

lew · 03-31-2008, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm working Joe_Cool in OnTopic to see if I can get banned....he's sent two PMs asking why I'm being a dick in the gay marriage/polygamy thread. I sent back "because you're a dick." We'll see how long I last. I never liked him, even when I was a mod.

motivez · 03-31-2008, 10:18 AM

lol

Joe asked for a self ban here awhile back. His problem is he only argues with analogies, and they're usually pretty horrible.

He also seemed to be a bit of a 1 issue type of person, the issue being the 2nd Amendment.

7960 · 03-31-2008, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

lol

Joe asked for a self ban here awhile back. His problem is he only argues with analogies, and they're usually pretty horrible.

He also seemed to be a bit of a 1 issue type of person, the issue being the 2nd Amendment.

I thought he was one of those ultra-religious types. He always finds his way in threads on gay marriage and he's really against it so maybe I just assumed that.

7960 · 03-31-2008, 10:36 AM

Also, I'm not really working on a ban but I won't be surprised if it happens. I'm just really, really sick of his kind of argument.

Essentially the thread looks like this:

-these are different
-no they're not
-yes, one's red and one's blue and one's yellow; they're different
-no they're not
-if they're red and blue and yellow how are they not different?
-you just think you're an authority and want everyone to believe "because you said so"
-no, I didn't say so; they're red, blue, and yellow. they *are* different.
-they're not different.

It's exactly like when I tried to convince my 5 year old that a baked potato and mashed potato were both potatoes and just kept saying "no they're not."

lew · 03-31-2008, 11:10 AM

After reading the thread, I do agree with cool, however. Sorta.

I understand your point 7960 but I would agree with cool that they are related.

Polygamy and homosexual marriage that is, not animal-tree-baby love.

I'm all for legalizing any marriage system setup between consenting adults.

Scrum · 03-31-2008, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by lew

I'm all for legalizing any marriage system setup between consenting adults.

You're a filthy liberal.

7960 · 03-31-2008, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by lew

After reading the thread, I do agree with cool, however. Sorta.

I understand your point 7960 but I would agree with cool that they are related.

Polygamy and homosexual marriage that is, not animal-tree-baby love.

I'm all for legalizing any marriage system setup between consenting adults.

They're not any more related than hetero/gay marriage.....it's slippery slope. Polygamy has been legal without gay marriage being legal. Gay marriage is legal in places where polygamy is not legal. If they were related then it would be "both or neither" and it's clearly not that.

Any how would you reply to my last post,

Saying, "If we allow gay marriage then you're a bigot if you don't allow polygamous marriage" is the exact same thing as saying "If we allow heterosexual marriage then you're a bigot if you don't allow gay marriage."

Are you saying we should have allowed gay marriage all along?

lew · 03-31-2008, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

They're not related.....it's slippery slope. Polygamy has been legal without gay marriage being legal. Gay marriage is legal in places where polygamy is not legal. If they were related then it would be "both or neither" and it's clearly not that.

Any how would you reply to my last post,
Saying, "If we allow gay marriage then you're a bigot if you don't allow polygamous marriage" is the exact same thing as saying "If we allow heterosexual marriage then you're a bigot if you don't allow gay marriage."
Are you saying we should have allowed gay marriage all along?

Yes.

It's not a "slippery slope" to me. It's an issue about personal rights. If two people want to be married, then they can get married, whether homosexual or hetero. If three (or a thousand) people want to get married, then they can as well.

However, none of that means that you should be able to force a church to marry you if they don't agree with your perspective on marriage.

lew · 03-31-2008, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

You're a filthy liberal.

lew · 03-31-2008, 12:00 PM

Since I'm currently banned on OT, how am I supposed to surf with my AE since it doesn't have a sub.

7960 · 03-31-2008, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Yes.

It's not a "slippery slope" to me. It's an issue about personal rights. If two people want to be married, then they can get married, whether homosexual or hetero. If three (or a thousand) people want to get married, then they can as well.

However, none of that means that you should be able to force a church to marry you if they don't agree with your perspective on marriage.

And his argument keeps going, that not allowing him to marry his dog infringes on his personal rights. And when I point out that's a different issue *AND* tell him why he says I'm just saying "because i said so."

That's the frustrating thing about his argument. He's saying that I'm saying "because I said so" and (a) I'm not, and (b) can't see that's exactly what he's doing.

And the funny thing is he's never actually asked (and I've never said) if I believe plural marriage should be legal

Thorgrim · 03-31-2008, 12:33 PM

I've never met anyone online who "thinks" they know it all, and acts like a know it, and yet doesn't...I'm allowed to say that about banned members like Joe Cool right?

lew · 03-31-2008, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

And his argument keeps going, that not allowing him to marry his dog infringes on his personal rights. And when I point out that's a different issue *AND* tell him why he says I'm just saying "because i said so."

That's the frustrating thing about his argument. He's saying that I'm saying "because I said so" and (a) I'm not, and (b) can't see that's exactly what he's doing.

And the funny thing is he's never actually asked (and I've never said) if I believe plural marriage should be legal

It seems to me that his main point in the argument is how plural marriage is similar to homosexual marriage. He's not really talking about the dog / tree thing.

7960 · 03-31-2008, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by lew

It seems to me that his main point in the argument is how plural marriage is similar to homosexual marriage. He's not really talking about the dog / tree thing.

but hetero marriage is similar to interracial marriage is similar to inter-religious marriage is similar to inter-familial marriage is similar to ........................... and still each of those has been dealt with separately, but now for some reason "you're a bigot if you support gay marriage but not plural marriage." Makes no sense why those are tied together but none of the previous were tied to gay marriage. Or, if they were (and I'd guess they were) it took 50+ years for gay marriage to start to show on the horizon and even now it's being decided as its own issue.

He's making an association where none exists but where one *seems* to exist because they *seem* closely related. His argument might as well be "if we require air bags in cars then they're also going to have to require them in semi-trucks and boats and motorcycles too!" Not so much.......they're each individual issues.

JaJae · 03-31-2008, 01:20 PM

I got this from another forum:

Originally Posted by fazle

It is not my intent to charge more, Id like to charge less. Sure if I could do it all for free, I would. But there is no perfect world, and even living in this country costs taxes. There are 5-6 major contracts that keep OT running, contracts that will continue to make me pay thousands of dollars a month even if the site was to disappear. I have invested money that I will probably never get back. OT is NOT a primary source of income for me, it is a hobby. A very expensive hobby. I have my own life and income source, I don't need OT to pay for anything that I have or will have, I need OT to pay for its own.

This is all work in progress, OT will never understand it or read more than 2 lines, but all this will blow away soon and OT will be better than ever. The site has evolved, will continue evolving, will continue to exist. Everyone has become a psychic now, predicting what will happen and posting useless replies in this forum from their parent's basement. Believe me, we will be here.

Nothing ever remains same, growth sometimes brings necessary changes. What made sense for the site at one point no longer does, and vice versa. OT is a privilege, not a right. I am sure there are other forums you can go to if you do not plan on supporting this site or do not agree with my views. No hard feelings, log out and go find something else, and come back in a few months when you realize there is no substitute. Or stay with us and follow our new path.

Cliffs: log out or stfu. Glen is accepting self ban requests.

Basically I've been seeing the phrase "primary source of income" coming from Fazle and Glenn lately. I think this is an admission that they are making money. I'm sure Fazle's real job may pay him more than he makes off OT, which is probably why he pays Glenn to be his lacky.

I just can't believe they'd be so hard up for cash that they need to charge all of their users. A site with that much traffic flow should be generating more than enough to cover his costs, and if it isn't there are other ways of making it do so than charging his users and running them off. That just seems counter-productive.

The second bolded part of his post seems pretty arrogant.

lew · 03-31-2008, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

but hetero marriage is similar to interracial marriage is similar to inter-religious marriage is similar to inter-familial marriage is similar to ...........................

Right...and each and everyone of those should be legal. And should have been, forever.

A_C_E · 03-31-2008, 05:38 PM

I'm kind of glad I took a self-ban at the end of February and have been ever since

kinggovernor · 04-02-2008, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

lol

Joe asked for a self ban here awhile back. His problem is he only argues with analogies, and they're usually pretty horrible.

He also seemed to be a bit of a 1 issue type of person, the issue being the 2nd Amendment.

the amount of time certain people spend online talking about the 2nd amendment is ridiculous