Jump to content

Pie Serendipity

Resident
  • Content Count

    406
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pie Serendipity

  1. PeterCanessa Oh wrote: Watch out Pie - after the last flame wars the mods said we should RIC first and not ask questions. It's Catch 22. If you RICked every repetition of a nonsensically malevolent fictitious accusation you'd get banned for spamming the moderators.
  2. Phil Deakins wrote: I'm not doubting your memory, Laurin. I am doubting mine but not enough to decide that it's wrong. I'm still thinking that you didn't see everything. You may have done, but I'm thinking you may not have done. Rhonda herself posted the reason for the outburst in the page that pep linked to, so I'm on safe ground there She deleted the outbursts (several of them) but she didn't delete this. This is what she posted:- It was not his little barbs. It was what he did to someone you called a friend. She is gone now, so it is not like it can ever happen again The "she" was Amara, as you thought, and the "you" was Jerboa. The outbursts weren't caused by the 'thighs' barb, although that probably added to everything else. They were caused by what he did to Amara. You are right that nobody else responded in such a manner but others did respond in support of Rhonda after she wrote the outburst. It was just that others wouldn't have written such a thing themselves. Also, nobody wrote in support of pep. That whole part of the thread was written against pep's behaviour. I know that pep has friends in this forum - very few, but they do exist. To be honest, since they know what he does, it doesn't speak very highly of those friends, imo. I also know that he was trying to drum up support from outside the forum (I really did get messages of support from people) and it's my guess that's how you and someone else arrived in these threads out of the blue Incidentally, I know what Pep will do now - what he's known for doing - so I've already asked for this thread to be locked before it takes off. Why are you spending so much time researching what DID happen - I gave the links to it remember, and could have explained all this hokum, as well as the truth of the matter, but why drag it all up again - and apparently none at all digging up ANYTHING that might support the delusions you have invented as accusations? If you are insisting on disinterring historic antagonisms, Pep would like to plead guilty to criticising Rhonda's avatars thighs, preferring a movie star's knees to Elora's, and being disgusted by 3Ring's coprophilia. Oh, and posting a very artistic image of a dead cat floating in a pool of raindrops, and a photo of a REALLY BIG spider which frightened Treasure. He regrets that last one.
  3. Laurin Sorbet wrote: the notion is absurd. QFT! IBTL as well. (It's a same Phil won't be able to get the threads where he has humiliated himself removed, then he could create even more false memories.)
  4. Phil Deakins wrote: I'll suck it up when I know for certain that I was mistaken, and the memory is too strong for that. In the meantime, you won't kill this thread like you did the other one, because you'll be talking to yourself, and I imagine even you would soon get bored with that. This is my last post to you on this subject in any thread. You can remain deluded. I won't help you. Kill this thread? It would be doing the forum a favour, since it was a pointless one in the first place, asking a question which was only necessary because your cognitive functions have become almost terminally degraded. You won't ever admit that you were mistaken, of course, even though you were. That would be admitting to yourself that your inhabitation of a fantasy world has extended from SL to your real world. Or perhaps you will also invent a memory that I admitted you were right (as if!) which will comfort you that you are not actually descending into insanity - inaccurately of course.
  5. Glossom wrote: What a fantastic story. It made me laugh to tears Be warned Glossom, Phil has a very unreliable memory and has a reputation for making things up. You wouldn't want to be accused of writing about something that never actually happened, would you?
  6. Thank you Love. (I never thought I'd actually type those words!) And of course, you'd have mentioned it if I'd ever done, afterwards, those scurrilous things Phil had imagined. I recommend you suck it up now Phil; nobody is going to trust you ever again.
  7. Why do people do online dating? For the same reason students try to do their assignments without getting out of bed. Laziness.
  8. I think it was reading a thread started by a lazy journalist looking for free copy. I laughed and laughed at their mistake.
  9. Phil Deakins wrote: Awe wasn't having fun. He'd become too wound up by another thread and was using this one to try and let off some steam. It actually looks more like he was helping a decrepit old man who had lost his memory.
  10. Well Keli, you're from the 90s and I'm from the 70s . . . . . . comparatively speaking.
  11. JeanneFau wrote: You're very selectively paranoid. Thank you for the compliment.
  12. Innula Zenovka wrote: Pie Serendipity wrote: Don't believe the nonsense about the Spooks having put a backdoor in TOR; that is a bunch of disinformation intended to deter users - it is still secure and will remain so until, or rather, unless, it is closed down, at which point the non-public version will kick into operation. Isn't that exactly the sort of disinformation the Spooks themselves would put out if they wanted people to continue to use TOR for criminal purposes, despite the recent arrests apparently based on information interecepted on TOR? Nah, the NSA assessment goes into detail about how the Spooks made the Silk Road bust and effectively admits that the combined might of the Spooks and GCHQ can't crack TOR itself. Of course, Tor might even be a US/UK government-sponsored agency hidden in plain sight . . . . . . but I don't think so.
  13. Yes, I know it might seem a surprising topic to raise in an environment where everybody is apparently anonymous. Nevertheless, it seems relevant to those who do not wish to share their details with Linden Lab, which LL has of course facilitated with their validation-free sign up policy in a desperate attempt to bolster plummeting participation numbers. I am not talking about the risks taken by those who have voluntarily given their identity details to LL, either so that their credit cards can be drained of funds by inworld purchases of land rights or so that they might acquire inventory-loads of virtual shoes, or in the various ridiculous age-verification schemes that generated mailing-lists for bondage equipment manufacturers who failed to notice that a considerable number of their targets had the surname Presley, or Mouse. No, I am referring to those who have registered NAIF(My own acronym - clever eh - standing for No Account Information on File) avatars and who would prefer to secure their participatory information against the remote [sic] possibility that renegade staff of LL and their "selected partners" might abuse their employers' trust, or even demonstrate a normal level of incompetence, by releasing even the limited contact information they have regarding NAIF users (ie email, IP and potentially MAC addresses) to third parties who might be less than trustworthy. As well as LL, Lithium, who run these outsourced forums, and the shadowy organisations who have provided "home-worker" customer disservice staff have access to such information. There may be other organisations; I don't have a German email address, so have no real insight into the recent furore about whether SL user emails in "de" domains had been hacked. It has also been known for the authors of third party viewers to behave in a less than acceptable manner in this respect. The point of this thread, however, having given a short description of the type of threat that confronts SL users (inworld, on these forums, and in the Profile Feeds) is to identify and publicise the means by which we can obtain some sort of reassurance that our anonymity is maintained, and our identities protected. To start the ball rolling, I would like to recommend TOR. Even though the US Spook Services are dual about this "Darknet", schizophrenically perceiving it as a brave online freedom initiative which facilitates uprisings in previously non-USA friendly nations, while also expressing deep paranoia regarding its ability to support what it considers illegal information trafficking relating to crime, terrorism and official government data embarrassing to the current and recent administrations. Don't believe the nonsense about the Spooks having put a backdoor in TOR; that is a bunch of disinformation intended to deter users - it is still secure and will remain so until, or rather, unless, it is closed down, at which point the non-public version will kick into operation. And you don't have to worry about the technically inept security service operated by LL cracking it; they can't even stop a bunch of Bombay spammers. So that's my suggestion for securing your continuing anonymity; does anybody else want to offer alternatives, or additional protection?
  14. Czari Zenovka wrote: Maryanne Solo wrote: Shan, (in this, one of its many variations), is of course welsh. You, (in this, one of your many variations lmaoo), of course, can't seem to be trusted. No pixel bananna 4 u. Welsh you say? Shan is how an antipodean semi-literate might spell the way the Welsh girl's name Siân is pronounced. ETA: I know at least one South African of Portuguese heritage who is called Shan. He's a bloke.
  15. Madeline Blackbart wrote: I love how pies arguements lend nothing to the actual conversation at hand. Insulting people's intelligence doesn't actually prove your point. It only proves that you have no real defience of your ideas so you switched to name calling like a child. Troll harder pie. If you inspect the thread carefully I think you will find the reality of the situation is that my normal approach, as recommended by my father of "Don't start anything, but make sure you finish it" applies. I find retaliation an appropriate defence against your accusations. Unless of course the posts by hyperemotional over-reacting participants initiating the offensive dialogue have been removed, either to prevent self-humiliation, or by moderators acting in accordance with the ToS, which I applaud.
  16. Is the answer: "Hopefully, fast enough". ETA: Does it involve v=u+at; I still have nightmares in which such equations haunt me.
  17. Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Up to now I had the feeling the only person being put down is the person trying to put others down, doing it to himself. That doesn't change the fact that it's a rather pointless exercise to keep posting, I do agree:) It's crystal clear there is no reasonable discussion possible. That doesn't change the fact that someone unwilling to see the difference between being a smart-ass and being smart (or just an ass maybe?) can at times be amusing. Note that "laughing with" and "laughing at" are two very different things. Keep up the English lessons; you may achieve a degree of understanding eventually. You see, your problem is the same as Suspiria's used to be, and countless ESLers suffer from as well; you don't understand what you don't understand. See Abba's song lyrics for a prime example of the problem.
  18. Phil Deakins wrote: Maddy - and everyone else - there are people, very few people, who it is simply not worthwhile engaging in any sort of reasoned discussion because their objective is not to have a reasoned discussion. Their objective is only to put people down, and engaging with them only feeds their enjoyment. They can be shown to be wrong all day long but they love it because it gives them more opportunities to put people down. One such person is participating in this thread and it is best to ignore that person. You are so right, Phil. Those unable to hold a reasoned discussion would do well to heed your words and desist in their participation, instanter.
  19. Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Pie Serendipity wrote: it is impossible for the stupid to pretend to be smart, It shows. Posts and posts without any spelling errors and still nothing fruitful. Your true status is also very clear, not a single person seems to take you seriously, for obvious reasons. You're the troll that chokes on everything it's fed. Continued repetition of inaccuracy does not make it correct; it merely expands the scope of your humiliation.
  20. Phil Deakins wrote: Wajam is a non-malicious system that's snuck onto my computer as a browser add-on. It changed pages to include ads. That sounds like an oxymoron.
  21. Lynda Baran wrote: Easiest way is not to use anything google. google is evil. And cars should be banned because they have killed more people in the last decade than were killed in all the wars of the twentieth century. Except for my car.
  22. Summer Tison wrote: Don't feel the need to defend people with disabilities . . . I quite like all the oddballs like Pie Summer, how dare you suggest that I may be defective. I will have you know I have an even number of balls, and a non-zero number at that! ETA: Sorry if I have misunderstood what you may have intended to say; it was entirely intentional.
  23. Syo Emerald wrote: Before you go against my spelling...please learn a second language and try to use it flawless and fluent all the time. This comment is, of course, nonsensical. This is an English language forum. Why should anyone be forced to learn and use a second (rate) language before commenting on the ineffectiveness of communication of others here? You might just as well suggest that people should become expert in telepathy to participate in the forums so that they can understand better what others are trying to say in their posts. ETA: Although that would be very useful in many cases.
  24. Sorry Peter, I don't want to tempt Rob Tish back out of his self-imposed exile by further comments on the pointlessness of using airplanes in a virtual world where you don't need them to fly. Instead, have this uplifting tale of a plane crash.
  25. Madeline Blackbart wrote: steph Arnott wrote: So your a bully in RL too? Pretty much that's what he's saying. I would never say that. It's very bad grammar.
×
×
  • Create New...