International I Hate Sports Club

Agent 47 wrote:Andy - making that hateful post about us on the Tech N9ne website was a low act of bastardry that may even have been what triggered the 4chan attack against us.

So ultimately, it could be YOU that was responsible for the 4chan attack.

Even if the 4chan attacked was caused by someone who stumbled across the post Andy made on that site, you could hardly say that Andy was responsible for it. That's like saying Fat Man was responsible for the attack because the 4channers thought he would be an easy victim and thus attracted 4chan to this website. I'm not saying that Fat Man was responsible for the attack at all, I'm just saying that both suggestions are completely false, and neither of them are responsible for the 4chan attack. In a situation where a 4channer saw Andy's post on that site, and if that caused the 4chan attack, even then, it's not as if Andy thought that a month later, his post would cause a troll attack which went far past the flaming that Andy suggested.

Yes, HugeFanOfBadReligion, I also believe that we need to stay with the evidence we've got and not use it in an attempt to support unconfirmed assertions. What we know is that Andy did try to get people on another forum to flame our website, and I also believe that he wouldn't have claimed responsibility for it at all if it were to happen and would have distanced himself from it completely. I can understand why Agent 47 doesn't trust him, but this by no means is an indication that Andy had anything to do with the 4chan raid. I can actually remember seeing the cached thread of the 4chan discussion in which this website was brought to their attention (it has long since dropped off the radar) and the message said something like this: "Can't believe this website hasn't been trolled yet: (URL of our site)". It has long since dropped out of the Google caches. I should have linked to it in here while it was still up but I forgot, and it's too late now. Point is, given what I've seen and know, I strongly doubt Andy had anything to do with the 4chan raid; all we know is that made a deliberate attempt to bring heat on our website and would have probably never owned up to that were it to actually have happened. But then again, one can argue that seeing how there is nothing to prove him guilty, there is nothing to prove him innocent either, save his own word. I suppose that we're all going to have disagreements over this issue but this is only my 2p's worth.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

Thank you, HugeFan and i_like_1981.

Hi, ChrisOH. I doubt that Andy would take your comments as a personal attack upon him. While I don't refute a single word in your post, I should point out that Andy has never had a problem with anyone not liking sports. He even said so on the Tech N9ne webpage. His only objection was being negatively stereotyped as a football player, which is a legitimate complaint (as far as I'm concerned). As a boy I experienced negative stereotyping of a different sort, stereotyping that was unwarranted and undeserved; so, I know how it feels. That's why Andy's complaint resonated with me.

Hi, recovering_fan. With all due respect, I think you're honestly mistaken about Andy. You may have missed his first post in this thread, the one in which he did apologize. He posted more than once. I_like_1981 had said that he would not have blamed Andy for thinking less of him. So, what Andy meant is that he did not think less of i_like_1981 as a person for calling our attention to the Tech N9ne webpage. He wasn't commenting on his masculinity or whatever. But I appreciate you for sticking up for i_like_1981. I don't think Andy's conceited. He also has a high GPA, which would seem to indicate to me that his intelligence is above average (especially considering all the time Andy has to devote to his training). I reacted angrily to Fat Man being ungracious. That has nothing to do with sports, but is part of an ideal of human conduct in which I strongly believe. I see a great difference between Andy, on the one hand, and someone like Samdaman or even Bob Bestler (see "online confession of a former bully"). Now, that piece of his (which I copied and pasted in the OP of that topic) sounded less than contrite.

In a website's forum, all we have are the other poster's words. We cannot read a guy's heart over the Internet. In my humble opinion, I possibly might know Andy a bit more because I've corresponded with him a number of times via e-mail. I realize that for the most part a poster's veracity cannot be established with absolute certainty. Yes, the possibility exists that Andy could be pulling my strings (but I don't believe it). I have to be true to my own convictions and keep my conscience clean, regardless of what anyone thinks. If I err on the side of trust, so be it. If I pay the price for such erring, I can still feel good about myself.

An interesting thought occurred to me late last night or earlier this morning. Unlike most online posters, Andy has not exactly bothered to conceal his identity. He even posted his e-mail address when he left his first message in the Guestbook, and he used his first name as his username. Not to mention several pictures of himself that he's attached to certain webpages. I've noticed that trolls conceal their identity (for obvious reasons). This single fact leads me to believe that Andy is no more a troll than is Fat Man, who also has not gone to great lengths to conceal his identity. (No offense, Fat Man)

At one point this controvery reduced me to tears. No kidding. (Somewhere a reader of this post says, "How fem, Earl ...") In conclusion, let me quote a line from a movie or a Warner Brothers cartoon or possibly a comic strip. (I don't remember which. Who knows?): I love youse guys! (Place hugging Smilies here.) (Meanwhile, that same reader repeats himself, "How fem ..." ) I respect everyone's point of view. My intention is not to discourage any member of this forum. At the same time I'm willing to stand by my own convictions, I'm also willing to let this particular controversy rest.

P.S. By the way, recovering_fan, I've given your suggestion (clicking the "Preview" button several times while writing a long post) a try and now use that method. It works considerably better than what I had been doing before. Thanks for telling us about it.

If you are willing to let this issue drop, Earl, then you have my thanks, for that.

--RF

I'm honestly not sure what to think about all this, although I'd like to believe Andy's apology is sincere.

HugeFanOfBadReligion, I can't work you out. Back in the OMGdudeWhat issue, you were so sensitive about some funny images that Fat Man posted as being some serious bullying issue, and yet here where there is actual hard evidence of Andy inciting an attack on this entire website, you are so incredibly adamant that it was all quite harmless. They just seem like quite opposite values for one person to hold. It must be complicated being you!

Skul wrote: I'm honestly not sure what to think about all this

Hmmm... I think I can help you with that.

In fact, there is an old saying! -

A wise man once said...

Skul wrote: SportsSuck.org. Bringing you the truth... no matter how bad it hurts.

OK, Andy Candy is a moron, because in an earlier post he said . . . . .

Andy wrote:My academic success has absolutely zero affect on my schooling. For instance, my sister is not an athlete, never has been, but she has a 4.0 in the honors college at the other big university in the state. She is currently on a full-ride scholarship just because she works her butt off in the classroom.

Yeah! Andy Candy is a fucking moron!!!

And so am I!

I must also be also a fucking moron because I overlooked another important fact!

For instance, my sister is not an athlete, never has been, but . . .

The key word here is sister.

Girls don't have to be athletes, so girls can just breeze right through academics, because girls are not put under the same pressure to excel at sports as boy are.

So, I guess that I must confess to having a moron moment, because I had overlooked that rather significant fact.

Boys in school are under pressure to like sports, and to be good at sports, while girls are not.

I know this for a fact, because when I was going to school, I noticed that most of the girls made higher grades than most of the boys.

So, it boils down to this . . . . .

Sorry! But you're not allowed to check out Astronomy books from the school library, because you have a penis!

Yeah! Because boys have balls, then they must play with balls, while girls have the brains and therefore, are allowed to read books.

I really don't believe in equality of the sexes!

Why would intelligent women want to be equal to men and come down to our level and wallow in the mud with us?

No ladies! You're actually better than us men! You're superior to us men!

WE MEN ARE PIGS!

No wait! I take that back!

Pigs are gentle and intelligent creatures. We men aren't good enough to be pigs!

You see, somewhere along the way, we men have decided that reading books, and studying science and math, well . . . that's sissy stuff. Real men don't sit around reading books. Real men play in sports.

Oh! But if any boy in school has a crippled up leg, and can't do sports, then we just throw him out with the trash!

We will harass him until he has an emotional or mental breakdown, and then, send him off to the loony bin for a little while, and then, we will beat him some more, and shove a dick up his ass!

Gee! I really wish I had been born a girl.

Then, I would not have been under pressure to be in sports, and I would have been allowed to excel academically, even if I had a crippled knee.

If I had thought for one moment, that cutting my nuts off would have changed my life for the better, I would have done it in a New York minute!

OK, I'm in a really fucking bad mood!

The arthritis in my left knee kept me awake last night, and it's been hurting like a son of a bitch!

Agent 47 wrote:HugeFanOfBadReligion, I can't work you out. Back in the OMGdudeWhat issue, you were so sensitive about some funny images that Fat Man posted as being some serious bullying issue, and yet here where there is actual hard evidence of Andy inciting an attack on this entire website, you are so incredibly adamant that it was all quite harmless. They just seem like quite opposite values for one person to hold. It must be complicated being you!

Back in the OMGdudeWhat issue, a certain member did something to another member which I certainly wouldn't have appreciated if it was done to me. Also, a comment was made after the image was posted where the member who posted the image stated that it was his turn to be the bully, a mentality that I strongly disagree with. In this issue, a certain member went to a forum and asked others to come to this forum to post simple insults, and never asked to defame a person's image (unless, even in an alternate situation where some people did actually come to this site to flame us, you consider text based insults to be defamation of character, which I don't think is true). Additionally, that member requested the flaming after he had been stereotyped, insulted, and treated quite unfairly by a group of people. I also take these positions in arguments because I find that lately, I've been more inclined to take a stance that is not completely against the athletic side, not because I'm secretly a sports fan, but because some members are acting like the anti athletic inquisition. For example, if an anti-sports person came onto this site and acted superior to others by posting his IQ, his GPA, and his university degrees, I highly doubt that you would even say anything against this member. However, when OMGdudeWhat came onto this site and came off as narcissistic by posting his physical details, you had no problem with, and even supported, any way that another member insults OMGdudeWhat.

I also find that a large amount of your arguments consist of several "What If" scenarios. What if OMGdudeWhat's photo isn't actually a photo of himself? What if Andy isn't actually involved in a charity? What if Andy caused the 4chan attack? All of these scenarios lack overwhelming evidence in favour of it, and I find most of the arguments in favour of them quite unconvincing (also, we now know that Andy's charity is not false). I am also reminded of the constant Nazi comparisons you made in the previous issue, which remind me of the silly arguments that I would see in the news on Republican protesters (no, I'm not bashing Republicans in general, keep in mind that I'm only referring to the specific Republicans that use these arguments) that would compare Obama's health care plan to Nazism and that they would pull the plug on your grandmother, or calling Nancy Pelosi "Nazi Pelosi".

You never responded to what I said about your post that blamed Andy for the 4chan attack. He never intended on bringing 4chan to this site to harass members of this site, but only asked that some members of another forum come here to do some flaming, something that is quite easy to handle. If I went to some forum and advertised this site, asking anyone who agrees with us to join and participate in the forum, and 4chan stumbled across my post, would I be responsible for the 4chan attack? Regardless, I doubt it was even Andy's post that brought this site to the attention of 4chan.

HugeFanOfBadReligion wrote: You never responded to what I said about your post that blamed Andy for the 4chan attack.

Well, seeing that you've brought it up here now, to be perfectly honest, I find some of your longer posts to be quite rambling and tedious to read, , and I often scroll right through them, so yeah I may have missed something. But I think you're referring to this post of yours, where, in fact, mine was the very next post after it, and where in fact, Andygate and the 4chan raid were ALL I talked about. You didn't ask or say anything specific to me, I didn't think.

HugeFanOfBadReligion wrote: (also, we now know that Andy's charity is not false).

Yes. I know. I acknowledged that in my very next post after Earl provided the proof.

HugeFanOfBadReligion wrote: I am also reminded of the constant Nazi comparisons you made in the previous issue

Constant? Two?

Well, that was just a bit of a fluke. I didn't actually have any sort of Nazi agenda there. It just kind of happened. The first one I threw in partly because it would have been such a short sentence otherwise, and it gave the point a bit more impact. I was just trying to impart the thought of the pathway that censorship can take, and where it can lead. And hey, how about a bit of poetic license here anyway?!!

Agent 47 wrote:
OMG. SportsSuck.org has just gone down the pathway of censorship, i.e. book burning.

http://www.sportssuck.org/phpbb2/viewto ... 187#p22187

And the second one was just an analogy that you seem to have missed the point of. That was that "First they came..." quotation.


First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.



I simply used that to illustrate the point about the importance of speaking up about things like unnecessary censorship, because if you don't, then maybe nobody else will for you, if ever need be. That's all.

But you replied to it with this -

HugeFanOfBadReligion wrote:
For fuck's sake, nobody is coming for you. Skul and Earl aren't going to censor your posts because it doesn't fit with your ideology and I'm tired of these comparisons to the Nazis because nobody here is committing genocide.

http://www.sportssuck.org/phpbb2/viewto ... 221#p22221

I never said anything about genocide, and I didn't literally mean that Nazi's were actually coming to get anybody. Of course not. It was just a fitting analogy, and a nice little quotation, that just happened to be Nazi related.

Well, OK, but perhaps because you did bite a little bit on the first one, then maybe I partly threw the second one in to be a little bit cheeky! He he! Hey, I trolled you!

HugeFanOfBadReligion wrote: I also find that a large amount of your arguments consist of several "What If" scenarios. What if OMGdudeWhat's photo isn't actually a photo of himself? What if Andy isn't actually involved in a charity? What if Andy caused the 4chan attack? All of these scenarios lack overwhelming evidence in favour of it, and I find most of the arguments in favour of them quite unconvincing

Well, I'm sorry to hear that you have a problem with speculation. You must hate science.

HugeFanOfBadReligion wrote: For example, if an anti-sports person came onto this site and acted superior to others by posting his IQ, his GPA, and his university degrees, I highly doubt that you would even say anything against this member.

WHAAAAAAAAAAT? - YOU'RE SPECULATING THERE!!!

I thought you didn't like speculation?!!

HugeFanOfBadReligion wrote: If I went to some forum and advertised this site, asking anyone who agrees with us to join and participate in the forum, and 4chan stumbled across my post, would I be responsible for the 4chan attack?

OH NO! - MORE SPECULATION!!!

You must be delirious, HugeFanOfBadReligion!!



OK, so now that all of that off-topic stuff is out of the way, here's the main bit I was interested to get to -



HugeFan, your objections to Fat Man's funny images of OMGdudeWhat seem to be based on two things -
- bullying, and
- defamation.

HFOBR, I have the impression that you think Fat Man "bullied" OMGdudeWhat by posting those images, because it was you that first linked those pictures to bullying here.

HugeFanOfBadReligion wrote: Back in the OMGdudeWhat issue, a certain member (Fat Man) did something (post funny pictures) to another member (OMGdudeWhat) which I certainly wouldn't have appreciated if it was done to me. Also, a comment was made after the image was posted where the member (Fat Man) who posted the image stated that it was his turn to be the bully, a mentality that I strongly disagree with.

My main point here is that I disagree that Fat Man "bullied" OMGdudeWhat with those pictures. The way I see it, OMG came on here and started attacking Fat Man first, (p.16 of the Introductions thread), and then Fat Man merely fought back in return. Fat Man was merely defending himself from an attack, not bullying.

So that's why I support what Fat Man did. I support his right to defend himself.

And I think his bullying remark later, was just a throw away line after you had brought it up first, and not an accurate description of what had actually happened.



And I'm assuming you are comfortable with the general principle of self defence, because if I'm reading this right, you are justifying Andy's flaming of us on the grounds of self defence, because he got treated badly on here...

HugeFanOfBadReligion wrote: Additionally, that member (Andy) requested the flaming (On Tech N9ne) after he had been stereotyped, insulted, and treated quite unfairly by a group of people (here).

Yes. I am actually liking (in principle) what you are saying there. I like that, because you seem to be advocating someone's right to defend themselves against an attack. (Such as like Fat Man did with those images).

And I put the "in principle" in there because flaming is against Rule No.1 of this website, of course.

And there is another interesting thing about Rule No.1 - apart from the No Flaming thing obviously, the last part of it also says - "...If they start using insults, then by all means give it back to them. In other words -- respond in kind."

So even built into Rule No.1 is the principle that it's OK to defend yourself from an attack - which is all Fat Man was ever doing with those images.



To me, it's that simple, and nothing more needs to be said. Fat Man was not bullying, he was merely defending himself.



But you have also mentioned that Fat Man's funny images were defaming OMGdudeWhat.

Well if you're going to go down the pathway of defamation though, then Andy's text based flaming (calling us fags, etc), would also be legally classified as defamation. So to be consistent, you would also need to apply the defamation rule to Andy as well, and therefore be critical of Andy on that basis too. You can't apply it to Fat Man, but not to Andy. That would be inconsistent.

But honestly, the whole defamation thing is a non-issue, because like ChrisOH said, no real names were involved anyway, so there's really no case for defamation anywhere. Not even close.



Which simply comes back to the fact that Fat Man was merely defending himself with those images, and not bullying.

Can I at least convince you on that?



Could you just answer these two simple questions to see if we've made any progress here, please -

(1): Do you still think that Fat Man defamed OMGdudeWhat with those images?

and,

(2): Do you still think that Fat Man was bullying OMGdudeWhat with those images, or can you see that he was only defending himself?

Agent 47 wrote:I find some of your longer posts to be quite rambling and tedious to read, , and I often scroll right through them, so yeah I may have missed something. But I think you're referring to this post of yours, where, in fact, mine was the very next post after it, and where in fact, Andygate and the 4chan raid were ALL I talked about. You didn't ask or say anything specific to me, I didn't think.

While I appreciate your honesty, it is good to be familiar with a subject that you are criticizing, in this case, me. And in this case, because you were unfamiliar with this subject, no, that was not the post I was referring to.

Constant? Two?

Well, that was just a bit of a fluke. I didn't actually have any sort of Nazi agenda there. It just kind of happened. The first one I threw in partly because it would have been such a short sentence otherwise, and it gave the point a bit more impact. I was just trying to impart the thought of the pathway that censorship can take, and where it can lead. And hey, how about a bit of poetic license here anyway?!![/quote] As soon as the actual controversy began, your first two posts each contained Nazi comparisons, and the third contained a defense of your Nazi comparison.

Agent 47 wrote:I simply used that to illustrate the point about the importance of speaking up about things like unnecessary censorship, because if you don't, then maybe nobody else will for you, if ever need be. That's all.

I never said anything about genocide, and I didn't literally mean that Nazi's were actually coming to get anybody. Of course not. It was just a fitting analogy, and a nice little quotation, that just happened to be Nazi related.

I also did respond to the point that it made to your comparison with censorship. And I said that the moderators aren't going to delete any posts simply because they don't agree with the message. The Nazis destroyed information simply because they didn't agree with it.

Well, OK, but perhaps because you did bite a little bit on the first one, then maybe I partly threw the second one in to be a little bit cheeky! He he! Hey, I trolled you!

I'm about to relate this to a meme that apparently originated in 4chan (according to the site "Know Your Meme"), something I'd hate to do, but that statement reminded me a lot of this comic strip that was featured on the Know Your Meme article of a meme known as the "Trollface", an image that someone posts to reveal that they are actually trolling:

Well, I'm sorry to hear that you have a problem with speculation. You must hate science.

Your speculations are far from scientific work. Not only do I believe that your speculations often lack solid foundation, but you seem to use them in your arguments as the truth, e.g. when you continued to use the possibility of Andy starting the 4chan raid in your posts.

WHAAAAAAAAAAT? - YOU'RE SPECULATING THERE!!!

I thought you didn't like speculation?!!

OH NO! - MORE SPECULATION!!!

You must be delirious, HugeFanOfBadReligion!!

The speculation you used and the speculation I used are entirely different. I didn't say that there was a narcissistic anti-sports member here that you wouldn't criticize, I said that you likely wouldn't criticize that member. You actually said that Andy may have gone to 4chan and started the raid on us, while my speculation was merely a hypothetical situation that I didn't suggest was true. And the second thing you quoted, that was hardly speculation. I know that I wouldn't have been blamed (at least by most people) for the 4chan attack if I posted a link to our website in what I believed to be a supporting environment.

HFOBR, I have the impression that you think Fat Man "bullied" OMGdudeWhat by posting those images, because it was you that first linked those pictures to bullying here.

Actually, Fat Man connected those images to bullying before I did. It was there that he said that it was his turn to be the bully. I believed that was wrong of anyone to believe it is "their turn" to do an immoral act. I didn't view it as bullying before then, and I don't particularly view it as bullying now, but I felt that his logic seemed to imply that it was okay for him to be the bully, regardless of whether or not he was bullying. It was hardly even the defamation involved in those images that bothered me, regardless of whether or not it actually is defamation, it was Fat Man's justification of the images.

My main point here is that I disagree that Fat Man "bullied" OMGdudeWhat with those pictures. The way I see it, OMG came on here and started attacking Fat Man first, (p.16 of the Introductions thread), and then Fat Man merely fought back in return. Fat Man was merely defending himself from an attack, not bullying.

I don't see much of what OMGdudeWhat posted before Fat Man posted the images as an attack, more of a criticism. The only thing he really did that was offensive was referring to the bullying some members have experienced as "name calling" when Fat Man had experienced physical bullying, however, that just seems to me to be a mistake. A fairly ignorant mistake, but I still don't view it as an attack, nevertheless.

And I think his bullying remark later, was just a throw away line after you had brought it up first, and not an accurate description of what had actually happened.

You seem to be misinformed. Fat Man made his bullying remark before I ever criticized the images. On Tuesday, February 11, 2011, at 5:02 AM, Eastern Time,

After all the times I had been bullied around by the jocks, by PE coaches in school, and by obnoxious sports fans, I guess now, it's my turn to be the bully!

I made my first criticism of Fat Man at 6:37 AM on Tuesday, February 11, 2011.

I was somewhat offended by Fat Man's comment on it being his turn to be the bully, in fact, it was about as insulting to my experiences with bullying as OMGdudeWhat's comment was to Fat Man's experiences with bullying. I could have lowered it to his level and manipulated images of Fat Man, and I would have been "merely defending (myself) from an attack, not bullying" as you put it. However, I had no interest in doing that because an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

And I'm assuming you are comfortable with the general principle of self defence, because if I'm reading this right, you are justifying Andy's flaming of us on the grounds of self defence, because he got treated badly on here.

I still dislike the fact that Andy asked for us to be flamed, however, it did no harm to us, and given his charity work, and the way he was mistreated, I'm still generally in favour of him. I still don't like what he did on that other forum.

And there is another interesting thing about Rule No.1 - apart from the No Flaming thing obviously, the last part of it also says - "...If they start using insults, then by all means give it back to them. In other words -- respond in kind."

So even built into Rule No.1 is the principle that it's OK to defend yourself from an attack - which is all Fat Man was ever doing with those images.

As I said earlier, it was not an attack, but an ignorant mistake instead. Fat Man took it further than OMGdudeWhat took it.

Well if you're going to go down the pathway of defamation though, then Andy's text based flaming (calling us fags, etc), would also be legally classified as defamation. So to be consistent, you would also need to apply the defamation rule to Andy as well, and therefore be critical of Andy on that basis too. You can't apply it to Fat Man, but not to Andy. That would be inconsistent.

Technically, I suppose Andy's post on the other forum could be considered defamation. However, the extent of that, and the extent of Fat Man's images, are much different in terms of defamation. I would find it easy to tolerate someone on a computer insulting me through text, however, I wouldn't find the manipulation of my image to be tolerable.

But honestly, the whole defamation thing is a non-issue, because like ChrisOH said, no real names were involved anyway, so there's really no case for defamation anywhere. Not even close.

If the people at Encyclopedia Dramatica were to remove Fat Man's actual name from his article, yet everything else remained, do you think he'd suddenly be pleased? I know I wouldn't. Just because OMGdudeWhat's name wasn't involved doesn't mean the images aren't insulting or defamatory. It still is an actual image of OMGdudeWhat, thus it can still be related to the actual person that OMGdudeWhat is.

Which simply comes back to the fact that Fat Man was merely defending himself with those images, and not bullying.

Can I at least convince you on that?

Not really.

Could you just answer these two simple questions to see if we've made any progress here, please -

(1): Do you still think that Fat Man defamed OMGdudeWhat with those images?

and,

(2): Do you still think that Fat Man was bullying OMGdudeWhat with those images, or can you see that he was only defending himself?

(1): Yes, as I explained earlier in this post.
(2): I don't believe Fat Man was simply defending himself. And Fat Man explained himself, before I made any criticism of the situation, that he was being the bully.

In response to HugeFanOfBadReligion:

HugeFanOfBadReligion wrote:Also, a comment was made after the image was posted where the member who posted the image stated that it was his turn to be the bully, a mentality that I strongly disagree with.

Why don't you just come right out and say, that it was Fat Man who made that comment?

Let us be honest here! OK?

It was I who said that, so, right or wrong, I'm honest enough to admit to saying that. I won't deny it. I'll own up to it. OK?

Yeah, bad choice of words on my part. I admit it.

But after having been punched in the stomach with a basketball, and my head bashed against a brick wall by my 5th grade teacher who would not allow me to check out Astronomy books from the school library, after having been physically assaulted by a PE coach when I was in the 7th grade, and after having been beaten and raped by an older man in his 40s when I was 17 years old, well . . . . .

. . . I think I feel sort of justified by bullying back a bully!

Anyway, my posting those images of OMGdudeWhat does not amount to a physical assault on his person. It was merely verbal and pictorial, and resulted in no physical injury.

Whereas I had suffered a concussion, and some possible brain damage, and having dizzy spells and headaches during my teenage years, which gradually diminished over the years until I was in my early 20s.

So, as for that particular comment I had made, I plead, guilty as charged! OK?

Anyway . . .

Have you ever heard of an anti-missile-missile?

It's a missile that the USA would launch against an oncoming enemy missile, to intercept that enemy missile, and destroy it before it reaches us, thus protecting us from destruction.

Well, how about an anti-bully-bully?

Yeah, I know, it's like the ol' "eye for an eye" but I'm not plucking out any eyes here. OK?

OK, you weren't here about a year ago, when our forum was raided by those low-life scum-bag zoo-tramps from 4chan.

We were all harassed, but I was singled out for special harassment, probably because I am the most radical and out-spoken member of these forums. I don't mince my words.

First I got an E-mail, informing me of a page someone had put up at Encyclopedia Dramatica that was dedicated to me, Fat Man, and on that page, my phone number, my E-mail address, and my residential address was posted, possibly placing my life in danger.

I don't know how they got my phone number and residential address. Someone probably managed to hack in somewhere to get that information.

The only places where I had entered that kind of personal information was when I use to order books, music CDs, and computer software from AMAZON or somewhere else I had ordered books on line.

Well, I am boycotting AMAZON and I have closed my account with them, because they are selling a book written by a pedophile titled:

Viamund The Boy/Love Vampyre - by Viamund the Rake - AKA - Octaevius Altair.

Now, while I'm against censorship, I draw the line when it comes to kiddie porn, so I'm boycotting the motherfuckers!

I now use Barnes & Nobel instead, because they have the common decency to not sell that vile piece of garbage!

I don't believe in freedom of speech for pedophiles. They should be bound and gagged, and thrown down an abandoned mine shaft somewhere!

For more details on that, just go to the following topic.

BOYCOTT AMAZON!!!
http://www.sportssuck.org/phpbb2/viewto ... ott+Amazon

Also, I was having stuff charged to my bank account, so I had to cancel my debit card, and apply for a new one.

And then, I was getting bills in my snail mail charging me for Sports Illustrated magazine, a subscription I did not order.

Not only that, someone from Dominoes Pizza knocked on my door with a pizza delivery that I did not order, which I had refused to pay for.

Also, I received a shitload of E-mails because someone had subscribed me to a bunch of Sports Newsletters on line, and I had to unsubscribe to every one of them.

And finally, I was woke up in the middle of the night by harassing phone calls.

This has set me back financially and I was under a lot of emotional stress, on the verge of cracking up.

So, I was on the receiving end of cyber-bullying, and now, I'm actually afraid to order anything on line anymore, for fear that someone might be able to hack in somehow and get my personal information. I've lost faith in "secure" web sites.

I also had to close my Face Book and My Space accounts to protect myself from any further harassment.

Now, when I took OMGdudeWhat's avatar and did some "editing" and posted the photo-shopped images, well, that was nothing compared to the harassment and cyber-bullying I had received about a year ago.

So, let us not feel too sorry for OMGdudeWhat! OK?

Aw! The poor baby!

He can kiss my fat ass!

HugeFanOfBadReligion wrote: Actually, Fat Man connected those images to bullying before I did.

OK, a little help here please...

Fat Man wrote: After all the times I had been bullied around by the jocks, by PE coaches in school, and by obnoxious sports fans, I guess now, it's my turn to be the bully!

Well, I'm stuffed if I can find that quote anywhere. Can someone post a link to it, please? (Not dates or times). What post is it in?

I swear, the first place I can see that connects those images to bullying, is from HugeFanOfBadReligion here...

HugeFanOfBadReligion on Introductions p.18 wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:23 pm (Unlogged-in time)

It wasn't the fact that he utilized that picture of the ugly person again that I didn't like, I had seen it before and wasn't bothered by it. But it was the fact that an actual person's picture was manipulated for the purpose of defaming that person that bothered me. I felt that this was quite similar to the bullying that can be found in schools which is a major topic of this site.

http://www.sportssuck.org/phpbb2/viewto ... 192#p22197

Well, I really never was that bothered about the OMGDudeWhat issue. Do you know why? Because I didn't honestly feel that he himself would be. And he wasn't, you know. He even took part of one of Fat Man's images and made that his new avatar, so I believe that this renders this entire issue a closed book. I doubted OMGDudeWhat would be the sort of person who would be offended by some obviously fake images based on how he depicted himself in his posts, so I wasn't going to cry over all of this. What happened towards Jerry McGuire and the Imperialist is far more of a concern in my opinion, because Jerry had his family insulted over the internet and the Imperialist was meant to be on our side but somehow got constantly harassed over one post he made in a certain topic. As for OMGDudeWhat, he did seem rather ambiguous in his posts and shouldn't have started showing off his vital statistics by posting them as his signature. That seemed like a thinly-veiled attempt at proclaiming superiority over us and trying to contrast his "manly strength" with our presumed "nerdy weakness". I didn't see the point in that either. If you're posting on a forum where you intend to take an opposing viewpoint to the other members, don't try and proclaim superiority over them in any way, because that can be seen as belittling them and their viewpoints, and you are likely to take heat as a result of it. So yeah, OMGDudeWhat didn't set himself on a high starting point in my book for that.

In response to the "it's our turn to be the bully" comment, let me say this - I don't think being bullied by people gives you a right to be like them by tormenting others because of different opinions on things. But I really honestly don't see why some members of this forum shouldn't be bitter towards sports and the overhyped culture that surrounds them, and I can understand why the sports fans haven't always had a nice reception at this website - sports likers are in the huge majority compared to sports haters, yet they see the need to come on here and tell us we're wrong, when this website really isn't going to have any effect whatsoever on the sports culture or industry. I support the idea of debate between sports fans and the members of this forum, but can't exactly bring myself to blame some members for not welcoming them with open arms.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

Agent 47 wrote: OK, a little help here please...

Well, I'm stuffed if I can find that quote anywhere. Can someone post a link to it, please? (Not dates or times). What post is it in?

I swear, the first place I can see that connects those images to bullying, is from HugeFanOfBadReligion here...

Here is a link to my post that came immediately before Fat Man's in the "I will be away for awhile" thread.

http://www.sportssuck.org/phpbb2/viewto ... 131#p22131

Thanks for the link, recovering_fan.

OK, yes, I can see I had the sequence of events wrong, and I apologise for that, HugeFanOfBadReligion.

So that does put a different spin on the situation.

And so when the reality hit me that a comment about bullying could cause such a reaction in you, HugeFanOf, I was shocked for a while, as I contemplated what unspeakable horrors you must have endured, at the hands of your bullies, to cause such a reaction.

I don't know what to say.

Perhaps you have a bit of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and that might be something that a professional counselor could help you with to nip in the bud now, before it gets too ingrained?

Wikipedia wrote: Posttraumatic stress disorder

Diagnostic symptoms for PTSD include... avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma

Children or adults may develop PTSD symptoms by experiencing bullying or mobbing

Criteria:
One or more of these must be present in the victim:... intense negative psychological or physiological response to any objective or subjective reminder of the traumatic event(s).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttrauma ... s_disorder

Don't let the bullies live in your head rent-free.


But I still don't think Fat Man actually bullied OMG though.

OMG started it by giving Fat Man a bit of shit, and Fat Man just gave a bit of shit back.

Fat Man simply fought back.

Fighting back is the last thing bullies want you to do. They want to silence you, and fighting back at them takes away their power.

And fighting back is not just limited to an eye for an eye either. There are lots of different ways to fight back. If there are bullies at your school, then maybe force them into a mediation session with a counselor. It would do them good. Get into their heads and mess around!

Just tryin' ta help.








P.S. - 200 POSTS IN 3.35 YEARS! Currently on track for my 1,000th post in 2024!