Peace at home, peace on earth:Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Peace at home, peace on earth:Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

LOL are you implying I'm a "well known idiot" on this forum? You, the man who has made nothing but one insulting post after another for as long as I've come back to this forum? You, who makes random, vague claims, then runs away, or avoids/ignores requests for you to back up your statements, or clarify what you're inferring? Are you honestly this blind or ignorant to your actions? Or are you just hurt/angry/jealous that you've run into someone on these forums who can intellectually hand you your own ass on a silver platter?

The sequence of your last 2 posts shows your hypocrisy, and is a perfect example of what my last reply was about. You made a useless post insulting everyone in this thread by claiming everything they wrote is useless and uninteresting (just as you've done countless times over the course of the last year or so), yet when I point out the fact that YOUR replies are useless (since it is YOUR posts that revolve around personal attacks as opposed to relevant opinions or info on the topics you're replying to), you turn around and accuse ME of doing it.

"Well known" is maybe too much too soon - but keep it up, you are getting there.

What you call a "useless post" was a legitimate question about why such a stupid rule exists, a rule which had just been used to reprimand a new member making his very first posting. He hasn't made another posting since then - with a welcome like that, it is not surprising. But you don't give a damn about that.

[Crimson Glow]

Re: Peace at home, peace on earth:Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

I find it interesting that the intelligent members of this forum have been expressing their opinions about the "not bumping old threads" rule, and are mostly against the rule, but that all the well-known idiot members of this forum have no opinion to express, and simply make personal attacks on the person who asked the initial question.

LOL are you implying I'm a "well known idiot" on this forum? You, the man who has made nothing but one insulting post after another for as long as I've come back to this forum? You, who makes random, vague claims, then runs away, or avoids/ignores requests for you to back up your statements, or clarify what you're inferring? Are you honestly this blind or ignorant to your actions? Or are you just hurt/angry/jealous that you've run into someone on these forums who can intellectually hand you your own ass on a silver platter?

The sequence of your last 2 posts shows your hypocrisy, and is a perfect example of what my last reply was about. You made a useless post insulting everyone in this thread by claiming everything they wrote is useless and uninteresting (just as you've done countless times over the course of the last year or so), yet when I point out the fact that YOUR replies are useless (since it is YOUR posts that revolve around personal attacks as opposed to relevant opinions or info on the topics you're replying to), you turn around and accuse ME of doing it.

The above quote/your last post is literally the equivalent to "I know you are, but what am I". BTW, you praised this idiots work on several occasions. You can't think of me highly one minute when I argue FOR your side, then call me an idiot the next simply because I decide to expose YOU by using those intellectual traits that you liked so much earlier.

[jgk3]

Re: Peace at home, peace on earth:Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

I'm glad you found something to be satisfied about bell.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Peace at home, peace on earth:Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

No, you are not correct. If that were the case, then you would have stopped posting here a long time ago, as nothing you have posted in the last few YEARS has contained anything important or worth reading?

I find it interesting that the intelligent members of this forum have been expressing their opinions about the "not bumping old threads" rule, and are mostly against the rule, but that all the well-known idiot members of this forum have no opinion to express, and simply make personal attacks on the person who asked the initial question.

I guess I've found a one-off useful function for that rule then, haven't I?

[Crimson Glow]

Re: Peace at home, peace on earth:Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

I will ask it again. Was I correct in saying that we are not allowed to bump old threads by adding new material because nothing that is said on this forum is of any importance so none of it is worth revisiting? And if that is not the reason, then what is the reason?

No, you are not correct. If that were the case, then you would have stopped posting here a long time ago, as nothing you have posted in the last few YEARS has contained anything important or worth reading?

[Gavur]

Re: Peace at home, peace on earth:Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

I think it just dumb downs the forum.We can probably put links for reference on the issue but, there's value in letting the reader decide on the current material they are interested in; as to how far they want to go back on that related issue.

[Joseph]

Re: Peace at home, peace on earth:Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

I don't mind bumping old threads either.

[Eddo211]

Re: Peace at home, peace on earth:Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

Some of these old threads contain important information and remain valid, IMHO.

x2

unless the person is responding or asking a question from someone who has not been here or posted several years.....then again that is funny. I think I might have done it myself.

[hrai]

Re: Peace at home, peace on earth:Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

not being able to bump older threads is one of the rules that i vote be abolished. when rereading the rules after a long absence that particular one stood out to me and struck me as being idiotic. what exactly defines a thread as being old? after how many weeks or months after the last post has been posted does a thread officially become 'old?'

Some of these old threads contain important information and remain valid, IMHO.

[Wowie]

Re: Peace at home, peace on earth:Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

not being able to bump older threads is one of the rules that i vote be abolished. when rereading the rules after a long absence that particular one stood out to me and struck me as being idiotic. what exactly defines a thread as being old? after how many weeks or months after the last post has been posted does a thread officially become 'old?'