Articles: Front page

[Killer Joe]

Some have read Hout's rebuttal [<--See? a hidden message within!] to turgy 22 casual article and wondered how it got published. It's because whatever can be put up on the front page that attracts attention (good or bad) is GOOD for this site!

I didn't bother to reply to it because I had nothing to add that wasn't already said. I'll gaurantee this, however, your replies are fuel to his persona which is a perfectly normal action. The more you directly reply to him the more he'll write things that may or may not be offensive to you.

I recently learned that the more I responded to his persona the more I got blasted, the first time was "Shame on him" the next 15 times are "SHAME on ME!"

So keep replying to the articles you like to read such as Notepads adventure stories and 20 Point Fireball and Scrub's Corner but for the love of Pete don't complain about a persona, just simply "IGNORE-LIST" it.




note: no smilies were used in this post due to sever criticisim by unmentioned aloof member. [<-- Hidden message in this sentence towards only one persona and it's not Houts]

 

[Spiderman]

It's because whatever can be put up on the front page that attracts attention (good or bad) is GOOD for this site!

That's not quite the intention. While perhaps it may be misguided, I put up articles that aren't flames or "short in content" (which does happen to encompass a lot) and let the chips fall where they may. "Attracting attention" is not what I'm thinking of when I post the articles though.

 

[Killer Joe]

Okay, maybe not the "number 1" priority but certainly it couldn't hurt; putting up attractive articles whether they be like Hout's rebutal or The Orgg's interviews with famous magic folk.

 

[Spiderman]

Well, to me the inherent attribute about an article is that it's supposed to attract someone's attention, somewhere. You put up an article, someone reads it, it attracted attention <shrug>

 

[Killer Joe]

I see that additional articles have come to light since Hout's reuttal AND a visit by Johnny "Friggin" Rizzo. I'll take it any way it comes

 

[Mooseman]

If only the ignore list included articles a replies.... sigh......
(Oh the irreverence of it all)

 

[Ferret]

You know, there is a nother way to 'ignore' posts? It's called IGNORING them. Each article/post/reply has the poster's name on it. We do not allow anonymouses on this site (although, you can use any name you want in an article reply, but I've never seen the aforementionned user use anything other than his usual handle).

If we spent all of our time on this site agreeing with each other, we'd just sound like the pro's that we're all supposed to be nothing like.

-Ferret

"I can honestly see the hypocracy that HOUTS is always trying to point out..."

 

[DÛke]

It's exactly this attitude - "ignore" - that is in part contributing to killing the CPA. The CPA has become so oppressive to the extent that if someone does not agree with the mods or the general attitude, they get ignored, attacked, and hated.

Welcome neo-Nazis.

I know, "you don't like it, leave." That's exactly the attitude I am talking about. I did leave, I still visit once or twice every day or so just to see if there is something new and interesting, which is becoming less of a task since, well, not much activity happens here.

No need to listen to me - ignore away. But this is my opinion, and I am still sharing it.

 

[DÛke]

Oh, and P.S.

Save me the libral nonsense about your principles of respect and fairness, about "open debate," and about how the CPA is like a "coffee shop" where everyone is "family." This is no longer a lie to the public, but a lie amongst yourselves, since everyone who is not inside the circle of the CPA is pretty much outside of it, and most likely despises that circle of oh-so-close "friends."

CPA: where people never practice what they preach.

 

[HOUTS]

*shakes head*

Honestly, I didn't want this kind of bickering.

(hangs head)

While I stir the pot, never did I try to make it boil over.

But, it is very hard to earn any respect. Not that I need to. I am a grown adult who has earned his respect through what my accomplishments. I won't be bullied, pull no punches, or act as if I know something I don't. I won't lie to you. Nor will I stand down to a fight.

I do not feed any negativism. I merely respond.

It does sadden me when I see Ferrett shake his head at everything.

Why did I write my article?

Because I like Eric's work. Because I wanted to submitt an article, longingly due, to those who enjoy my writing, or to those who do not. I write because I enjoy it.

But I won't apologize if you took offense. That lies on your behalf.

However, I think an article is overdue. A true one from the heart. Maybe my last one.

If you were looking to push the black sheep from the herd, you guys' might have just done that...

-HOUTS-

 

[Spiderman]

It's exactly this attitude - "ignore" - that is in part contributing to killing the CPA. The CPA has become so oppressive to the extent that if someone does not agree with the mods or the general attitude, they get ignored, attacked, and hated.

Welcome neo-Nazis.

I know, "you don't like it, leave." That's exactly the attitude I am talking about. I did leave, I still visit once or twice every day or so just to see if there is something new and interesting, which is becoming less of a task since, well, not much activity happens here.

No need to listen to me - ignore away. But this is my opinion, and I am still sharing it.

Sorry DUke, "I disagree". I think everyone has given everyone here a fair chance when they first started out. It's only when you keep butting heads with someone is when you make the decision whether you keep butting heads, or just "ignore them" and let things go.

Save me the libral nonsense about your principles of respect and fairness, about "open debate," and about how the CPA is like a "coffee shop" where everyone is "family." This is no longer a lie to the public, but a lie amongst yourselves, since everyone who is not inside the circle of the CPA is pretty much outside of it, and most likely despises that circle of oh-so-close "friends."

CPA: where people never practice what they preach.

Once again, this is wrong as well. We have welcomed many a new member: Mooseman, jorael, Limited, turgy22, and Arix. There's probably more but those are the most active who I can name off the top of my head.

 

[HOUTS]

"but a lie amongst yourselves, since everyone who is not inside the circle of the CPA is pretty much outside of it, and most likely despises that circle of oh-so-close "friends."

Oh, how true!

Completely agree with this. Anyone who disagrees is probably "that circle".

-HOUTS-

 

[Gizmo]

I dont think theres anybody left at the CPA with a shred of dignity, so you might as well go down slinging **** at each other.

 

[HOUTS]

LOL. Yep, no dignity at all.
LOL. OyxMORON used there...

*rolls eyes*

HOUTS

 

[Gizmo]

LOL. Yep, no dignity at all.
LOL. OyxMORON used there...

*rolls eyes*

HOUTS

I don't think you know what the word means.

"A paradox reduced to two words, usually in an adjective-noun ("eloquent silence") or adverb-adjective ("inertly strong") relationship, and is used for effect, to emphasize contrasts, incongruities, hypocrisy, or simply the complex nature of reality."

I don't see any Oxymorons in my post... indeed any adjective-noun or adverb-adjective relationships at all.

 

[HOUTS]

No, of course you don't.
But it is there.


"CPA with a shred of dignity"

It is used in this sentence. Please refer back you "basic writing skills"

LOL. Good try.

_HOUTS_

 

[Gizmo]

Can you point out the two-word adjective-noun relationship there? I missed it again.

Had I said 'dignified CPAer' then that would be something that you could construe as an oxymoron should you feel that being a member of the CPA and dignity is something that is mutually exclusive. But that's not the phrase I used, and therefore there isn't an oxymoron present just a desperate attempt at one-upsmanship from a regular moron.

 

[HOUTS]

*sigh*
You need to look beyond your basic definition, and grab yourself "Writing Well", it shows the classic uses of Oxymoron's.

You are using a subjective definition from a dictionary applied to one-word use.
The Oxymoron is here is the direct object of "CPA'er" (being myself) and the use of "dignity" (relationship). While it is contridicting, (see: dictionary) to use both in the same sentence, after further examination (see: dictionary) they make sense.

Sorry, bud, you're the one making a war over a very SIMPLE use applied to a sentence.
*shrug*
I teach this, part-time, so I don't mind educating further.
Now, you can take this a newly learned lesson, or still struggle to argue.
Whichever.
But I am trying to be nice here, uncommon, in my reply.

HOUTS