Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#37 - tehbestever
Reply +72
(10/12/2013) [-]
Saged, reported, hidden, called the cops, called the Fire Department, called pizza hut, called the USN, called the Royal Navy, called the Red Army, called the FBI. called the CIA, called Interpol, called the KGB, called the USMC, called the USAF, called the Royal Air force, called MI 6, called Scotland Yard, called the US National Guard of every state, called NYPD, called Obama, called the Queen, called Putin, called David Cameron, called every Governor of every US State, used my time phone to call Winston Church hill, As well as Hitler, Stalin, Theodore Roosevelt, George Washington, Montezuma, ever Caesar, and Gilgamesh, called US Army, called British Army in every era, called every phone sexline, called papa john's, called the US Coast Guard, called my State Senators, called my Senators, called every republican in the US, called Dr. Who, called the Pope, called my local Gang lords, called the State Patrol of ever state west of the Mississippi, called all of my local news channels, called Star Fleet, called The Sun, called The national enquirer, called CNN, called Scot Pelly, called Steven Colbert, called half of the Mexican Drug Cartels, called Nintendo, called the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, called the head of the Illuminati, called ever free mason, called bilderberg, called my neighbors, called the mayor of ever city in France, called my mom, called the Emperor of Man, and called every school district in Canada.
#349 to #37 - mayormilkman
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
>saged
You could have edited that out, at least.
#350 to #349 - tehbestever
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
why would i

it's a copy pasta, no one cares.
#351 to #350 - mayormilkman
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
You can't sage on FJ.
#353 to #351 - tehbestever
Reply -1
(10/12/2013) [-]
why would I be so anal about that?

And yeah, i've known for some time you can't sage on fj
#356 to #353 - mayormilkman
Reply -1
(10/12/2013) [-]
It wouldn't take much effort at all to edit the copypasta just to remove "saged."
#357 to #356 - tehbestever
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
But why would I

And why are you telling me to remove sage when it doesn't even matter in the slightest if I do or don't
#358 to #357 - mayormilkman
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
It's aesthetically better, that's why. "Saged" is so out of place on here.
#359 to #358 - tehbestever
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
so is "called the mayor of every city in france" but you're not saying remove that

Go ahead and remove it yourself, it doesn't mean I'll post the edited version
#362 to #359 - mayormilkman
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
"The mayor of every city in France" is random, but it adds to the humor of how absurd the whole text is. Saging is just something you do on 4chan and other imageboards.
#363 to #362 - tehbestever
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
Saged adds to the humor

also, stop trying to act like such a ******* /b/tard, holy ****.

The fact that you asked me to remove sage because it's only done on "4chan and other imageboards" and it's out of place here just makes me think you're autistic
#367 to #363 - mayormilkman
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
Saged doesn't add as much to the humor, especially given how many people on 4chan don't know the purpose of saging, so it's not an uncommon sight to see someone saging in a thread just because they don't like it. Anyway, har har at you losing your patience for going on in this dumb debate.

P.S. Autism isn't putting effort into something for more than five minutes or criticizing something.
#370 to #367 - tehbestever
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
Losing my patience? Yeah, sure, go ahead and think that.

And it's not even a debate, I just find it completely dumb that you're even pointing out that saged is in the copy pasta itself, which was most likely written for the purpose to be posted in an image board.

The fact that it was posted here doesn't matter. It's a copy pasta, not something I wrote myself. I"m not just gonna edit it because saged is out of place.
#375 to #370 - miscarriage
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
This image has expired
#376 to #375 - tehbestever
Reply +1
(10/12/2013) [-]
You think i'm gonna back down?

**** no
#377 to #376 - miscarriage
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Nah, I know you get into arguments whenever you can.


It was expected.
#371 to #370 - mayormilkman
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
Alrighty then.
#343 to #37 - anon
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
died at every schoolboard in canada
#279 to #37 - megatheman
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
You called?
#145 to #37 - whiplasher
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
Hold on, ************, you can't just call the Emperor of Mankind! And how the **** do you call Gilgamesh?
#224 to #145 - elcreepo
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
Inter-dimensional time and space phone.
#384 to #224 - whiplasher
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
Oh, right, sorry.
#92 to #37 - miscarriage
Reply +16
(10/12/2013) [-]
What
no ghostbusters?
#70 to #37 - GeneralLeeInsane
Reply +4
(10/12/2013) [-]
Ironically, according to Adspam's definition of ban-worthy material it has to be, and I quote, "...Anything resembling a human under the age of 18. Cartoons, CGI, and real life pictures count. Any violation of this rule will result in an instant ban."
Your image right there has a character resembling a human under the age of 18, and thus, is in violation of Adsman's rules.
#251 to #70 - revengeforfreeze
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
Nice nicknames.. those are admin nicknames right?
#73 to #70 - tehbestever
Reply +1
(10/12/2013) [-]
That's for ****

you can't fool meee
#75 to #73 - GeneralLeeInsane
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
Actually, if the rule applies to ****, then it would have to apply everywhere else, seeing as how **** has fewer restrictions than the SFW sections.
#78 to #75 - tehbestever
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
That doesn't make any sense but as long as you don't post **** **** on sfw, think what you want
#81 to #78 - GeneralLeeInsane
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
If you read the wording, it doesn't specify that the image has to be ************, it says "anything". This means that it applies to **** and SFW images. So, according to that rule, if your image was posted in ****, it would be in violation of the rule. But if the image is bannable under the **** section, why wouldn't that restriction also carry over to SFW? I mean, if even **** doesn't allow it, why would SFW allow it?
#83 to #81 - tehbestever
Reply +3
(10/12/2013) [-]
It applies to ****, meaning it applies for porn

Meaning you can't post child pornography or you get banned

If you post child porn on sfw, the same rule applies.

Jesus, stop trying to loophole the rules.
#91 to #83 - GeneralLeeInsane
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
I understand the intention quite well, but the words still specify that it applies to "ANYTHING". This is not a loophole, this is a strict limit, it leaves nothing to interpretation, and it clearly defines the restriction.   
   
It's LITERALLY as simple as changing the word "anything" to "************ images".   
   
You can be as pissy as you want about my pointing this out, but it will not change the definition of the restriction, which is absolute in this instance.
I understand the intention quite well, but the words still specify that it applies to "ANYTHING". This is not a loophole, this is a strict limit, it leaves nothing to interpretation, and it clearly defines the restriction.

It's LITERALLY as simple as changing the word "anything" to "************ images".

You can be as pissy as you want about my pointing this out, but it will not change the definition of the restriction, which is absolute in this instance.
#94 to #91 - tehbestever
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
"**** - NOT SAFE FOR WORK
Do not post anything resembling a human under the age of 18. Cartoons, CGI, and real life pictures count. Any violation of this rule will result in an instant ban."

If you infer it correctly, then you wouldn't post human PORN resembling anything under the age of 18, since the rule is being described in ****

You can say whatever you want about posting anything under 18 as being against the rules, but you'll just be wrong
#99 to #94 - GeneralLeeInsane
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSQNl4V_R88&hd=1#t=16s

A person can infer all day, but the truth of the matter is, simple clarification could solve many problems. However, adsphlegm was in a hurry and was afraid he was going to lose money, so he just worded it such that it would apply all around. People read the rule, and some see it as I see it. A completely ludicrous rule, that, when applied, affects more aspects of this site than just one.
Because of the broadness which the restriction applies, it makes properly enforcing the rule difficult, as well.
It was even worse, because originally, the rule stated that you couldn't post anything that appeared to be under the age of 18, this wording got the attention of the brony board in a really hurry.
As for that **** - Not Safe For Work heading, it's been there for a long time, certainly longer than the underage restriction sub-heading. Its original purpose was not about what NOT to post, it was merely informing users that the board could potential contain ************ material.
#101 to #99 - tehbestever
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
You literally did not say anything other than people having difficulty understanding the rule and linked some video saying you lose?

The rule's the rule. You said that people can't post anything under 18. They can, just not child pornography.

The only one wrong here is you.
#107 to #101 - GeneralLeeInsane
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
Third time's the charm?
Actually, what I said was, "It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal." I already did say that I understood the intent, but intent is not how this planet works. According to literature, it defines the questionable content as "anything under the age of 18" our separation of titles, sentences, and headers makes this so. And without understanding of the intention beforehand, this definition, when interpreted literally, leaves no grey-area.
I assume the "intention and inference" factor, is one of the unanticipated byproducts of adsperm's decision to select 2-year+ old users, the fact that older users know admin from the old days, and have a clearer understanding of what he is looking for.
Unfortunately, because humans are the way they are, this can also leave a lot of wiggle room for the new mods to bend the rules to their will a little, and can abuse their privileges, based on this literal definition, as the wording is clearly defined.

You can call me wrong until you're purple, and I still won't care about your silly inferences. It doesn't change how simple this could be to amend.
#111 to #107 - tehbestever
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
If there's no need to amend it, which there isn't, then he won't.

And the mods themselves have a specific set of rules and guidelines set by addy and themselves in which they are allowed to flagban. If they abuse their powers, they're removed from their position as quick as possible.

If that's what you're worried about, you're kind of worrying about nothing.
#408 to #111 - GeneralLeeInsane
Reply 0
(10/20/2013) [-]
www.funnyjunk.com/Seriously...+wtf+again/funny-pictures/4847359/
One week...
It took ONE week.
You were warned.
You were warned, and you didn't listen.
#409 to #408 - tehbestever
Reply 0
(10/20/2013) [-]
He's being a little bitch, to be honest

I don't agree or disagree

I'm just gonna fall back, but that doesn't really apply to this conversation either
#114 to #111 - GeneralLeeInsane
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
I worry about it about as much as Gordon Freeman worries about his trusty crowbar.

I'm just having fun pointing out that eventually, someone out there IS going to take some advantage of this, it's inevitable. Such is the way of humanity.
And as far as all the inferences and specificity goes, I have seen people banned for posting regular, non-cp porn in **** sections. I've seen people banned for uploading porn to the newest uploads, and they have never uploaded anything before, ever. I've seen addy personally ban people, simply because he felt like banning them.
I've also always seen addy mass-unban all of them in the end, whether they've actually broken rules or not.
#52 to #37 - thebestpieever ONLINE
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
I take offence at your username.
#44 to #37 - dogwars
Reply 0
(10/12/2013) [-]
How do you even call Gilgamesh?
#45 to #44 - tehbestever
Reply -1
(10/12/2013) [-]
called him anyway