Dr. Tom

If you can turn off sigs and avatars at work (which I do), can't you also avoid clicking on a topic with a curse word in it? Really, most of us are adults here. I see no problems with swearing in topic titles.

When was the last time you contributed something of value to this folder?

I think it's parts of both. I don't doubt that Sather has a good mind for hockey, but he was definitely in the right place at the right time with those absurdly good 1980's Edmonton teams. The success probably went to his head and made him think he was a bigger part of it than he really was, and he's been trying to duplicate it ever since. Unfortunately for him, teams like the Oilers come together in such a fashion very rarely. He's spent a lot of money, made a lot of moves, and generally put the Rangers' franchise image in the toilet trying to recreate the magic that was in Edmonton, but it's been to no avail.

Wishing death or harm to the president is a felony, so it's safe to say that wouldn't be allowed in someone's sig. I see what you're saying, though. It seems clear to me that the rules governing posts on the board would apply to sigs and avatars as well -- they're part of the board, after all, and can be considered part of each post someone makes. It's something we'll look at clarifying when we take another look at the rules.

The lyrics are absurd to the point that no one would take them seriously. Who really thinks those lines are advocating child abuse, and that, by using it, the poster in question is? Let me ask you this, CWM: before you found out you were a parent, would you have found this offensive? Two simple points: 1. Nowhere does anyone have the right not to be offended. 2. If something in a sig/avatar bothers you, they're easy to turn off.

ESPN is reporting that Ugueth Urbina has signed with the Tigers. He says he should be ready to pitch 2-3 weeks into the season. This ensures that there will be more manly kissing between Urbina and Pudge this season.

In a similar vein to Goodear's... Girls who make it a point to dress all sexy-like, then get upset when men look at their chests. I've been called a pig before for looking at a girl's rack, when it was obvious she chose close to make her breasts quite prominent. Don't blame me because you got the attention you were seeking. Actual conversation: Her: You pig, you were staring at my chest. Me: Well, when you wear a bra that pushes your boobs up to your chin, and a shirt unbuttoned to your navel, it's clear that's where you want me to look. Her: Pig! Me: Oink, oink! Nice rack, by the way.

That's fucked up. Not all dogs are territorial and vicious. Obviously, our burglars knew what they were looking for (and probably had some idea where to look), so perhaps you should be more judicious in who you talk to.

I was worried I'd score higher...

Yes I know. I didn't say the staff had to prove anything. ...I've never heard the words "just" and "message board" in the same sentence before. Then, if you concede the staff doesn't have tp prove anything, and you seem to be saying that no messageboard is just... what's the point of making an issue out of this?

I wish I got the Travel Channel here. Bloody Comcast. ::eggs Rant's house out of spite:: As for online poker, I play on Ultimatebet.com. I've yet to try the other ones, mainly because I don't want a plethora of real-money accounts out there. And yes, I only play for real money. Playing for fake money or play chips is pointless. No one in those rooms plays the same as they would if they had some real cash on the line. It's easy to call an all-in raise when you can just get 10,000 more play chips at the end of the hand; it's a lot harder when you have a flush, the board is paired, and you're fearing the full house that pwns you from the chap putting you all in.

Hmm, could this be a more obvious money grab? Of course, the guy does live in Utah, so he could be a Mor(m)on, and thus traumatized by the sight of a semi-naked breast. Either way, he's a tool who's just trying to sue his way to a paycheck.

Read those reports on Carter above. There's no way any rational human being can have a positive opinion on the man once you see the damage he's done around the world.

Track with me here, lad. Incident: Iraq might not have the WMD we thought they did. TSM Left-Wing response: "LOL! TEH CIA IS TEH SUX0RZ~!" Incident: One man's opinion about the events leading up to September 11th is published. TSM Left Wing response: "We should have acted sooner! Bush did nothing and just wanted revenge for daddy. (implied) We might have stopped 9/11 if we'd done something. TEH CIA IS M@D 1337~!" Both positions, of course, enable and foster negative views of the Bush administration. This is my point: you can't take a positive or negative opinion on our intelligence community just because one side or the other reinforces your pre-existing bias against the President. Form an opinion about them and stick to it. Speaking of pre-existing bias against the president... Do you have any that aren't just anti-Bush propaganda?

My point was that an effective response to the first WTC bombing might have prevented the two US Embassy bombings. An effective response to those might have prevented the attack on the USS Coale. I'm not trying to point the finger at Clinton here, since blaming him years after the fact doesn't do anybody any good. But to say his plan was better than Bush's doesn't make a lot of sense, since we still got attacked under Clinton.

Perhaps you should take that up with those who raised his name in the first place, then.

Who said that, ever? The inherent presumption, when it's said that we "ignored" Al'Qaeda prior to September 11th, is that not ignoring them would have done something to prevent the events of that day. Obviously, this requires our intelligence community to be on the ball, something your side of the spectrum doesn't think they are after the WMD issues in Iraq. Either you think they're great or you think they're nitwits, but your collective opinion on them shouldn't flip-flop because taking one side or the other allows you to get in a few more digs at the Bush administration.

Yes, because we all know how successful Clinton was at discouraging terrorist attacks against American interests. Oh wait, he wasn't.

That's awesome. And you know it would go down like that, too.

Let's say we had spent time and money monitoring Al'Qaeda closely. Are the liberals who have delighted in giving our intelligence community a good drubbing over the Iraq WMD issues now saying our intelligence community would have been competent enough to sniff out signs of the September 11th attacks and stop them before they happened? Come on, folks, you can't have it both ways. Either our intelligence community is great, or it's a bunch of boobs in borrowed suits, but you can't pick the one that benefits you at the time because it reinforces your dislike of the president.

Good, good. Anytime a terrorist leader falls, it's a good day. Gah... where were the missiles and tanks then? All those terrorists, marching in neat little rows, just waiting to be killed.

Fine. Then re-ban Banky and Sakura and we won't have a debate. We still don't have a debate, and there's a very simple reason for it: this board isn't a democracy. The staff doesn't have to prove anything to the posters as to why someone was banned, there's no standard of reasonable doubt, and this isn't close to being a court of law. This messageboards, like every other one I can think of, are essentially dictatorships, with the admins and mods making the important decisions. Call it an oligarchy if the term "dictatorship" causes your panties to twist, but the result is the same. We try to be fair in every decision we make, and I think we do a very good job of it. There will be occasional incidents, but people are human, and drama will happen. But really, this is just a messageboard, and different circumstances surrounding a few anonymous posters shouldn't even approach a topic of importance.

Remember when cfici/Frank Zappa Mask used to start topics? He's have to open them with "Please THINK and keep an open mind while reading this and replying." Then, of course, his posts would basically consist of "OMG Bush sucks, the US sucks, Republicans/conservatives suck, Mumia is a misunderstood gentleman who likes to pick daisies and play with kittens, and OMG BUSH IS TEH SUQ LOL2002~!" Not saying this recent one is that bad... but it did call it to mind.

He "got back" because he wasn't revealing anyone's information. All AOL IPs resolve to Dulles, VA, since that's where AOL's base of operations is. Threatening to hack someone's PC and posting what you think is their hometown is immature, impolite, and stupid, but it's not ban-worthy in my eyes.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's sad that people, seeing Benoit's win, had to logon to an internet messageboard and type "OMG BENOIT~!" to "celebrate?"