logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2019-07-19 21:24:25 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Do you want to know where you stand?

  Church of Virus BBS
  General
  Free For All

  Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination  (Read 6696 times)
MoEnzyme
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 8.84
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination
« on: 2011-02-18 10:14:24 »
Reply with quote

I've decided to create this subject thread as the repository for all further discussions regarding Mermaid's and Hermit's objections to the 2010 illumination of Alan Turing as the third Virian Saint. I may have a few last comments about it here, although almost all of my responses to their objections can be found in last year's posts. Although Hermit and Mermaid have both seen fit to rate me a "1" in Meridion as someone to be ignored, it seems that many if not most of their recent posts are indeed addressed to me directly or indirectly. This should be an act of hypocrisy, however I've been paying enough attention to realize that all of their posts directed at me concern this particular conflict/topic. I've therefore decided to create this special topic in the "free for all" section, to bypass their temptations to clutter up the "Doctrine section" or any other part of the BBS. So even if they continue to both remain unable to stop themselves, I shall not be raising the hypocrisy flag if they wish to continue attacking me here and yet still keep their Meridion rating of me at "1". I still welcome them to consider the hypocrisy of addressing me at all, but as long as they confine it to this particular thread, I'll not be making any more reminders on that issue. As for Mermaid, she remains a "1" with me too and so I predict that this is the only place I may possibly consider responding to her. As for Hermit, I've considered various different Meridion ratings for him, and it seems that I've finally settled on a "6" at least while this issue remains alive, which means that I may respond to him elsewhere on other topics if he chooses to engage, but whenever I think the conversation involves the 2010 Turing illumination, I'll keep my response here and/or link back here where appropriate. Since this is a "free for all" thread, I'll interpret that as offering maximum latitude to talk about anything or everything, so I won't be exercising any editorial control over anything other than my own posts, even though the BBS software gives me the option of locking the thread.

Love,

-Mo
Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
MoEnzyme
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 8.84
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination
« Reply #1 on: 2011-02-18 11:25:50 »
Reply with quote

I should point out that this thread came about due to a recent private exchange with Hermit where he reasserted that I was acting at Sat's direction during this conflict. Upon hearing this and investigating the BBS messages from that time I noticed that he first asserted this first publicly here on February 25th 2010.

http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=43294;start=0;boardseen=1

Quote:
As reflected in parallel threads, MoEnzyme has asserted that a vote for Turing forces the CoV to take a stance on Homosexuality and refuses to discuss it. He has deleted posts reducing the discussion to a farce, engaged in ad hominem against multiple people and acknowledges gaming the reputation system. Sat has acknowledged instigating some of this behaviour in order to satisfy his curiosity.

In my opinion, this should have prevented this vote from being opened and prevents me from supporting such a vote or being a party to an organization where members can act on such a basis with impunity.


I failed to notice at that time his assertion of Sat's alleged influence on my decision making and so I responded on the redirected thread, to which he responded, and then I responded again.

In regards to Sat, I never acted at Sat's direction. I take full responsibility for all of my actions during this conflict. I have no knowledge as to why Hermit believes that I was acting under Sat's influence but in any case that belief of his is and always has been erroneous even though he continues to assert it having no direct evidence of this himself.

Realizing that this issue is obviously not dead for Hermit, I figured it was time to make a new thread in this "Free for all" section instead of cluttering up the "Doctrine" section, so I've redirected all discussions about this conflict here to this thread.

So below is a paste-in of all of Hermit's and my exchange on the BBS in the last couple of days which led to the creation of this thread.

from: http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=43266;start=45
Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #49 on: 2011-02-17 09:07:02 »

In a private message recently with Hermit, he mentioned to me that Sat instigated some of my behavior which he complains about re:the Turing Illumination. I somehow seemed to have overlooked that he previously made this claim re:Sat publicly @http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=43294

Quote from: Hermit on 2010-02-25 07:34:36   
As reflected in parallel threads, MoEnzyme has asserted that a vote for Turing forces the CoV to take a stance on Homosexuality and refuses to discuss it. He has deleted posts reducing the discussion to a farce, engaged in ad hominem against multiple people and acknowledges gaming the reputation system. Sat has acknowledged instigating some of this behaviour in order to satisfy his curiosity.

In my opinion, this should have prevented this vote from being opened and prevents me from supporting such a vote or being a party to an organization where members can act on such a basis with impunity.


I have no idea if, where, or what Sat actually acknowledged, but I would like to clarify that I take responsibility for all of my decisions and was in no way acting at the direction of Sat. I also dispute Hermit's characterizations of my actions, but have already addressed those issues long ago, so the only purpose of this message is to respond to that one claim re:Sat which I apparently didn't notice almost a year ago.

2/18/2011 - ps. I've created a thread in the "Free For All" section to address any further possible issues regarding Hermit's and Mermaid's complaints and/or opposition to the 2010 illumination of Alan Turing as the third Church of Virus saint instead of cluttering up threads in the Doctrine section. The doctrine is settled, so any more post mortems belong in the free for all thread http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=43681;start=0;boardseen=1

Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #51 on: 2011-02-17 12:22:48 »by Hermit

Mo really is behaving rather pathetically.

Having destroyed and corrupted the threads evidencing the worst of his irrational assertions and very public attacks on the BBS during the illumination of Alan Turing, and now presumably having allowed his emotions to fester in his mind, Mo finally messaged us privately, and when responded to similarly, despite our having elected not to discuss his behaviour or Turing's illumination here, he elected to unilaterally publicize selectively chosen aspects from this private communication; presumably in an attempt to make others consider him less negatively or perhaps in a futile attempt to delude himself into feeling better about himself.

The validity of his sad, single sided diatribes in this thread and elsewhere may be judged by the readers, particularly in the light of the fact that Mo repeatedly makes claims which can be refuted by anyone with a memory; who cares to research them; or even who reads*; coupled with the fact that his blatantly biased ramblings are so self-evidently worthless as to have elicited only this note in response rather than the investment of any time in a refutation. The CoV being occupied by such lurid drama and slanted trivia, the hermits may be found at:

http://emilie.hermit.net
http://www.smarterearth,org
http://forum.smarterearth.org (easy to sign up)
http://www.schema2020.com

and somewhat irregularly via private messages here.

Hopefully this note won't be taken as an interest in a further discussion or worse, encouragement. Nothing could be further from reality.

*e.g. read the quotation at http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?action=display;board=4;threadid=43294;start=0#173823 cited by Mo today to see a hint as to what we objected to in the since: deleted (by Mo), edited (by Mo), editorialized over (by Mo) and obfuscated (by Mo) to death threads about his stance on the highly irregular vote for Turing - and note that our objections (and Mermaid's too) had everything to do with Mo's assertion that it would result in "forcing the CoV to take a stance on homosexuality", manipulation of the BBS, and gaming of the reputation system at Sat's instigation (see the contemporaneous chat logs) and nothing to do with Alan Turing (an immensely significant thinker and wonderful mensch advocated by us as a Virian Saint long before Mo Enzyme took up the idea, apparently for all the wrong reasons) or allegations about Turing's sexuality (which, as Turing himself did not address it, ought to be irrelevant to anyone except his fiancée and any sexual partners he may have had - which as far as we know, couldn't possibly have involved Mo or any other Virians).
« Last Edit: 2011-02-17 12:33:57 by Hermit »

Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #52 on: 2011-02-17 12:46:27 »by MoEnzyme

Hermit
Quote:
he elected to unilaterally publicize selectively chosen aspects from this private communication


Only one aspect - the issue with Sat. I apparently missed this the first time around. I'm concerned that you keep trying to multiply the individuals involved in this dispute. It was never anyone other than Mermaid, you, and myself. I've never tried to drag anyone else into this. Sat never directed me to do anything. I take complete responsibility for my actions. There was never anyone else in this verbal dispute than we three. I wish you would stop trying to drag everyone else into this. I would like to finally put it to rest some day sooner rather than later, but every time you keep imagining more people involved in this than these three individuals, you make it more difficult.

I still care about you. I still respect your many other contributions to this community. If you feel some need to be angry, the please just be angry at me or Mermaid. There was never anyone else fueling this.

Love,

-Mo

ps. and indeed it wasn't even a unilateral publicizing since you publicly made the connection to Sat almost a year ago yourself. I just failed to notice it at that time. The only thing I publicized was your reminder.

2/18/2011 - pps. I've created a thread in the "Free For All" section to address any further possible issues regarding Hermit's and Mermaid's complaints and/or opposition to the 2010 illumination of Alan Turing as the third Church of Virus saint instead of cluttering up threads in the Doctrine section. The doctrine is settled, so any more post mortems belong in the free for all thread http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=43681;start=0;boardseen=1
« Last Edit: Today at 09:30:25 by MoEnzyme »

Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #53 on: 2011-02-17 13:35:07 »by MoEnzyme

So is Alan Turing a saint for you, Hermit or not?

Once you shave away all your ad hominems against me, it should be a really easy question to answer I would think. Are you still going to let your wounded feelings against me stop you from actually answering it? Surely Alan Turing should be more important to you than attacking me.

Quote:
. . . allegations about Turing's sexuality (which, as Turing himself did not address it, ought to be irrelevant to anyone


First of all, you are completely wrong. Turing did address the charges against him. Instead of denying them or remaining silent, he said there was nothing wrong with what he had done.

Secondly though, he's dead, Hermit. That's the whole point. If he weren't, he couldn't be considered for sainthood by the very rules you agreed to in the first place. He has no desires anymore. His death is a matter of public record, and so what is left of his life and death belong to the living, not him as he's no longer alive. The same with Darwin and Hypatia. No one gets to write their own post mortem. It has never worked way . . . ever.

So given what's already all over the internet and the world about Alan Turing, long before any of us ever started considering him for sainthood, is Alan Turing your saint? Nothing we've done or said here has changed any of the facts about his life and death. It should be an easy question.

2/18/2011 - ps. I've created a thread in the "Free For All" section to address any further possible issues regarding Hermit's and Mermaid's complaints and/or opposition to the 2010 illumination of Alan Turing as the third Church of Virus saint instead of cluttering up threads in the Doctrine section. The doctrine is settled, so any more post mortems belong in the free for all thread http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=43681;start=0;boardseen=1


« Last Edit: Today at 09:40:40 by MoEnzyme »
« Last Edit: 2011-02-18 15:10:02 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
MoEnzyme
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 8.84
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination
« Reply #2 on: 2011-03-06 06:52:02 »
Reply with quote

I am deleting some of my own posts from the "Saint Alan Turing" thread in the Doctrine section and reposting them here without edits, as they aren't about Alan Turing at all, but rather a post-mortem of a year-old conflict involving Hermit, Mermaid and myself. I am also going to put in Hermit's responses in order for context.

Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
MoEnzyme
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 8.84
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination
« Reply #3 on: 2011-03-06 06:55:45 »
Reply with quote

MoEnzyme
Archon


Gender:
Posts: 2121
Reputation: 8.51
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

     
   Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #49 on: 2011-02-17 09:07:02 »    
In a private message recently with Hermit, he mentioned to me that Sat instigated some of my behavior which he complains about re:the Turing Illumination. I somehow seemed to have overlooked that he previously made this claim re:Sat publicly @http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=43294

Quote from: Hermit on 2010-02-25 06:34:36 
As reflected in parallel threads, MoEnzyme has asserted that a vote for Turing forces the CoV to take a stance on Homosexuality and refuses to discuss it. He has deleted posts reducing the discussion to a farce, engaged in ad hominem against multiple people and acknowledges gaming the reputation system. Sat has acknowledged instigating some of this behaviour in order to satisfy his curiosity.

In my opinion, this should have prevented this vote from being opened and prevents me from supporting such a vote or being a party to an organization where members can act on such a basis with impunity.


I have no idea if, where, or what Sat actually acknowledged, but I would like to clarify that I take responsibility for all of my decisions and was in no way acting at the direction of Sat. I also dispute Hermit's characterizations of my actions, but have already addressed those issues long ago, so the only purpose of this message is to respond to that one claim re:Sat which I apparently didn't notice almost a year ago.

2/18/2011 - ps. I've created a thread in the "Free For All" section to address any further possible issues regarding Hermit's and Mermaid's complaints and/or opposition to the 2010 illumination of Alan Turing as the third Church of Virus saint instead of cluttering up threads in the Doctrine section. The doctrine is settled, so any more post mortems belong in the free for all thread http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=43681;start=0;boardseen=1
« Last Edit: 2011-02-18 09:39:17 by MoEnzyme »   Report to moderator  Logged
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme

(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
MoEnzyme
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 8.84
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination
« Reply #4 on: 2011-03-06 06:58:49 »
Reply with quote

Hermit
Archon


Posts: 4237
Reputation: 8.31
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

     
   Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #51 on: 2011-02-17 12:22:48 »   
Mo really is behaving rather pathetically.

Having destroyed and corrupted the threads evidencing the worst of his irrational assertions and very public attacks on the BBS during the illumination of Alan Turing, and now presumably having allowed his emotions to fester in his mind, Mo finally messaged us privately, and when responded to similarly, despite our having elected not to discuss his behaviour or Turing's illumination here, he elected to unilaterally publicize selectively chosen aspects from this private communication; presumably in an attempt to make others consider him less negatively or perhaps in a futile attempt to delude himself into feeling better about himself.

The validity of his sad, single sided diatribes in this thread and elsewhere may be judged by the readers, particularly in the light of the fact that Mo repeatedly makes claims which can be refuted by anyone with a memory; who cares to research them; or even who reads*; coupled with the fact that his blatantly biased ramblings are so self-evidently worthless as to have elicited only this note in response rather than the investment of any time in a refutation. The CoV being occupied by such lurid drama and slanted trivia, the hermits may be found at:

http://emilie.hermit.net
http://www.smarterearth,org
http://forum.smarterearth.org (easy to sign up)
http://www.schema2020.com

and somewhat irregularly via private messages here.

Hopefully this note won't be taken as an interest in a further discussion or worse, encouragement. Nothing could be further from reality.

*e.g. read the quotation at http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?action=display;board=4;threadid=43294;start=0#173823 cited by Mo today to see a hint as to what we objected to in the since: deleted (by Mo), edited (by Mo), editorialized over (by Mo) and obfuscated (by Mo) to death threads about his stance on the highly irregular vote for Turing - and note that our objections (and Mermaid's too) had everything to do with Mo's assertion that it would result in "forcing the CoV to take a stance on homosexuality", manipulation of the BBS, and gaming of the reputation system at Sat's instigation (see the contemporaneous chat logs) and nothing to do with Alan Turing (an immensely significant thinker and wonderful mensch advocated by us as a Virian Saint long before Mo Enzyme took up the idea, apparently for all the wrong reasons) or allegations about Turing's sexuality (which, as Turing himself did not address it, ought to be irrelevant to anyone except his fiancée and any sexual partners he may have had - which as far as we know, couldn't possibly have involved Mo or any other Virians).
« Last Edit: 2011-02-17 12:33:57 by Hermit »   Report to moderator  Logged
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
MoEnzyme
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 8.84
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination
« Reply #5 on: 2011-03-06 07:00:12 »
Reply with quote

MoEnzyme
Archon


Gender:
Posts: 2121
Reputation: 8.51
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

     
   Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #52 on: 2011-02-17 12:46:27 »    
Hermit
Quote:
he elected to unilaterally publicize selectively chosen aspects from this private communication


Only one aspect - the issue with Sat. I apparently missed this the first time around. I'm concerned that you keep trying to multiply the individuals involved in this dispute. It was never anyone other than Mermaid, you, and myself. I've never tried to drag anyone else into this. Sat never directed me to do anything. I take complete responsibility for my actions. There was never anyone else in this verbal dispute than we three. I wish you would stop trying to drag everyone else into this. I would like to finally put it to rest some day sooner rather than later, but every time you keep imagining more people involved in this than these three individuals, you make it more difficult.

I still care about you. I still respect your many other contributions to this community. If you feel some need to be angry, the please just be angry at me or Mermaid. There was never anyone else fueling this.

Love,

-Mo

ps. and indeed it wasn't even a unilateral publicizing since you publicly made the connection to Sat almost a year ago yourself. I just failed to notice it at that time. The only thing I publicized was your reminder.

2/18/2011 - pps. I've created a thread in the "Free For All" section to address any further possible issues regarding Hermit's and Mermaid's complaints and/or opposition to the 2010 illumination of Alan Turing as the third Church of Virus saint instead of cluttering up threads in the Doctrine section. The doctrine is settled, so any more post mortems belong in the free for all thread http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=43681;start=0;boardseen=1
« Last Edit: 2011-02-18 09:30:25 by MoEnzyme »   Report to moderator  Logged
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme

(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
MoEnzyme
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 8.84
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination
« Reply #6 on: 2011-03-06 07:05:55 »
Reply with quote

Hermit
Archon


Posts: 4237
Reputation: 8.31
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

     
   Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #55 on: Today at 04:22:11 »   
MoEnzyme, failing to realize that most people are not interested in petty swipes at absent opponents, and being far too self-involved to comprehend the repeatedly asserted near total lack of interest on the part of Hermit & Co, has maintained a barrage of apparently compulsive posting and commenting on this topic, along with repeatedly issuing sneers, challenges and invitations. This possibly makes it worthwhile to take a little time to rebut his recent assertion that he, and only he, was involved in the manipulation of Meridion which he acknowledged during the process of illumination of Alan Turing.

Maybe MoEnzyme had overlooked or forgotten the appended post (or less charitably, perhaps he simply hopes that others have overlooked or forgotten it), containing a quotation from Sat on IRC, claiming credit for MoEnzyme's Meridion manipulations, posted on a thread where both he and Sat were active, while MoEnzyme, possibly in a fit of pique, possibly as a component of "social engineering", had manipulated, deleted, locked, spindled and mutilated the Turing proposal threads.

As this particular post resulted in complaints about topic-spamming, which suggests that it was noticed and read, but despite this, did not result in any contemporaneous attempt to disclaim responsibility or attribution, MoEnzyme's attempted late stage disclaimer seems less than persuasive or perhaps even dissimulative. While others probably have little or no interest in the answers, MoEnzyme might find it illuminating to ask himself if:
he did not realize that he had been manipulated;
he has forgotten that he was manipulated;
he is in denial about having been manipulated;
he is now asserting that Sat was lying or mistaken when he claimed to have inspired this manipulation;
From the answers, MoEnzyme might be inspired to wonder if he burned through a number of relationships and a previously largely unexceptional reputation with vitriolic attacks, unsustainable assertions and unmannerly behaviour motivated and predicated on things that he got wrong - and perhaps do better in the future. Then again, judging on the evidence scattered all over these boards, he may no longer be capable of the required thought as this would likely require rational introspection and empathy.

P.S. Outside of debate, and sometimes within it, reporting only on what people have done and what you think of their actions does not constitute "Ad Hominem", no matter how prejudicial it may seem to the subject. Ad Hominem is always an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise - and even under such circumstances is not always fallacious. For example, "in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue" (Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).

Re: Research: How you think about your age may affect how you age
« Reply #7 by Hermit on: 2010-02-24 13:50:09 »

Walter,

MoEnzyme has apparently decided to rewrite the rules under which the BBS is operated by attacking people, deleting posts, locking threads, voting down other members and electing not to respond to legitimate questions about his behaviour and assertions on the BBS. As such, raising the issue in other places may cause him to reassess his silence. This is not an issue about threads, it is an issue about MoEnzyme's approach and an attempt to establish an effective response to his BBS behaviour. Hopefully the need won't persist for very long.

According to Sat, he apparently proposed the rating war, and is colluding with Mo and introducing new players. As both members of this cabal are on this thread, it seems an appropriate place to respond. Over the past week Sat reduced his rating of me first to 5 and then to 1. I have now reciprocated in an attempt to maintain some equilibrium in the process.

From #virus

11:24:11  Sat  well the rating war right now is among some higher up virians who are down rating one another to fubar voting weights on issues.
11:24:19  Sat  I suggested it to Mo, actually.
11:24:26  Sat  I wanted to test how it'd unfold
11:24:29  Sat  * Sat winks
11:24:41  Orochi  Ah social engineering, thou art most clever.
11:24:45  Sat  * Sat watches his rating decrement
« Last Edit: 2010-02-24 14:00:38 by Hermit »
« Last Edit: Today at 04:37:55 by Hermit »   Report to moderator  Logged
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
MoEnzyme
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 8.84
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination
« Reply #7 on: 2011-03-06 07:31:08 »
Reply with quote

Please do not respond to this message on the "Saint Alan Turing" thread in the Doctrine section as I will be deleting it in a few days. Pursuant to my previous notices on that thread, I am moving all discussions concerning post-mortems regarding last year's conflict between Hermit, Mermaid myself to a thread in the "Free For All" section of the BBS which I created at the time of my previous notices. http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=43681

I am also deleting two of my previous posts on that Doctine thread which only concern and relate to that conflict and reposting them on the existing Free For All Thread already dedicated to that topic. Those posts by me are respectively "Re:Saint Alan Turing « Reply #49 on: 2011-02-17 09:07:02 »", and "Re:Saint Alan Turing « Reply #52 on: 2011-02-17 12:46:27 »" and can now be found on the new thread. I have also reposted Hermit's responses for context. There are a couple of other posts in reply to Hermit on the Doctrine thread which DO relate to Alan Turing which I will leave on there.
« Last Edit: 2011-03-06 07:39:36 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
MoEnzyme
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 8.84
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination
« Reply #8 on: 2011-03-06 07:46:47 »
Reply with quote

In a last ditch effort to make his post somehow relevant to Alan Turing, Hermit added this to his post in the Doctrine section AFTER I had already copied it to this Free for all thread.

Quote:
P.P.S. Turing made it perfectly explicit that he considered sexual orientation (including his own) irrelevant to anyone outside of a sexual interaction. As such, converting him into a "gay icon" is to contradict everything for which Turing himself stood.

P.P.P.S. To address one area of slur that MoEnzyme has repeatedly visited, despite the many explicit contrary messages above, we need to address Turing as "Gay Icon" forcing "a stand on homosexuality" for the C.o.V., and as a "Saint of the C.o.V.". On background, this is written primarily from Hermit's perspective because Hermit has known about Turing (including his sexuality and suicide), since he was about 8. Hermitess learned about him from Hermit, and felt total shock and horror at what she learned of how he was treated.

If, despite repeated challenges, MoEnzyme ever disavowed, "I had some inkling that Alan Turing was going to force us to take a stand on homosexuality - and hence GLBT cultural issues in general," it was not visible on the BBS, or on IRC, then or now. As can be seen through rereading this thread, particularly being aware that MoEnzyme deleted his posts and other threads on the topic, our conclusion from MoEnzyme's now long deleted arguments was that the above assertion is true for a significant number of people, mainly American, and as reflected in this thread, this resulted in our totally unexpected opposition to Turing's illumination by the C.o.V. This was because, and only because, the hagification of Turing with this question left open means that, for us at least, and we suspect for others, the C.o.V. now has a dogma , "a stand on homosexuality," even if MoEnzyme hasn't bothered to explain what it is.

Until then, we had our own stand on the subject, one which includes the fact that sexuality is irrelevant except to the people involved (Turing's personal stance, as reflected in his letters, diary and defence), and that love and sex are subjects for poetry, music, song, humour and celebration, not for the condemnation of others. We both have close family members and friends who enjoy "alternative" sexual orientations. We cherish them no more, and certainly no less, than any others of our family and friends.

So it is quite natural that, for us, Alan Turing was always a tragic exemplar of a wonderful, brilliant, much misunderstood polymath, who was persecuted by society because he cherished his right to freedom and to find joy with whoever he chose, however he chose. We admired and admire him, and would probably consider anyone emulating him, including, and perhaps particularly his sexual perspectives, to be wholly virtuous. We did not, and do not seek any other perspective, no matter how helpful its promoter's intentions may be. We shun the idea that any people should be prejudiced against on any grounds other than for embracing the Virian Sins or shunning the Virian Virtues - and are both dismayed that we should have been repeatedly accused of such - particularly by somebody who we thought was a friend and who we were - and are - certain, that he knew that the accusation was false.

Unfortunately, even while ignoring the unsolicited vicious attacks on ourselves and Mermaid, courtesy of MoEnzyme's persuasive - or at least passionate - arguments on this topic, Turing's election as a Virian Saint ended up negating much of what we most cherished about the Church of Virus. Not least it's previous lack of dogma. Which is why we strongly opposed the transfiguration of Alan Turing into "teh gay icon", abstained from electing him, and decline to promote an organization "abusing" his memory in this way (and recognizing that e.g. David Lucifer and many other Virians have no intention of abusing Turing at all. It is unfortunately an artifact of the way he is perceived, particularly in the USA, as a "gay icon".)

« Last Edit: Today at 06:29:06 by Hermit »

P.S I went ahead and responded to these afterthoughts on the "Saint Alan Turing" thread, since they were actually relevant to Turing unlike Hermit's original message which he had posted half an hour earlier.

PPS. To respond to the post-mortem personal conflict on THIS thread I continue . . .

Hermit asserts above:
Quote:
Maybe MoEnzyme had overlooked or forgotten the appended post (or less charitably, perhaps he simply hopes that others have overlooked or forgotten it), containing a quotation from Sat on IRC, claiming credit for MoEnzyme's Meridion manipulations, posted on a thread where both he and Sat were active, while MoEnzyme, possibly in a fit of pique, possibly as a component of "social engineering", possibly as a result of some combination, had manipulated, deleted, locked, spindled and mutilated the Turing proposal threads. As the appended post resulted in complaints about topic-spamming, which suggests that it was noticed and read, but despite this, did not result in any contemporaneous attempt to disclaim responsibility or attribution, MoEnzyme's attempted late stage disclaimer seems less than persuasive or perhaps even dissimulative.


While I am currently annoyed at Hermit's continued spamming behavior today as I have documented it here yet again, it was Walter Watts at that time who was complaining about his off-topic spamming behavior at that time.

http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=43289;start=0;boardseen=1
Re: Research: How you think about your age may affect how you age
« Reply #3 on: 2010-02-24 07:40:12 »
Walter Watts
Quote:
What does this have to do with Sat's new thread titled: "Research: How you think about your age may affect how you age"?

Would you please not hijack other threads to promulgate personal disputes concerning unrelated posts?

It makes for a very messy BBS environment.


Thanks

Walter
Report to moderator  Logged
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.


No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!


So perhaps Walter noticed and read Hermit's assertion about Sat at that time, where I was ignoring him as he was clearly posting off-topic at that time. I was only reading and responding to posts to on Sat's topic and was not bothering with the spam.

Hermit quotes his over-year-old message above to reassert his allegations:
excerpt:
Quote:
While others probably have little or no interest in the answers, MoEnzyme might find it illuminating to ask himself if:
he did not realize that he had been manipulated;
he has forgotten that he was manipulated;
he is in denial about having been manipulated;
he is now asserting that Sat was lying or mistaken when he claimed to have inspired this manipulation;


and later Hermit quotes his over-year-old message above to reassert his allegations:

excerpt:
Quote:
According to Sat, he apparently proposed the rating war, and is colluding with Mo and introducing new players. As both members of this cabal are on this thread, it seems an appropriate place to respond. Over the past week Sat reduced his rating of me first to 5 and then to 1. I have now reciprocated in an attempt to maintain some equilibrium in the process.

From #virus

11:24:11  Sat  well the rating war right now is among some higher up virians who are down rating one another to fubar voting weights on issues.
11:24:19  Sat  I suggested it to Mo, actually.
11:24:26  Sat  I wanted to test how it'd unfold
11:24:29  Sat  * Sat winks
11:24:41  Orochi  Ah social engineering, thou art most clever.
11:24:45  Sat  * Sat watches his rating decrement
« Last Edit: 2010-02-24 14:00:38 by Hermit »


Hermit provides alleged quoted #virus IRC passages without any link to actually reference them in the chat logs either now or when he initially made these claims over a year ago.

However, even assuming that they are correct as Hermit alleges, Sat made whatever decrements to Hermit's Meridion ratings after I had already reduced my Meridion rating of both Hermit and Mermaid to a "one", which I did at the same time I locked the one thread which he and Mermaid had reduced to an ad hominem-fest against me. (Incidentally, that's the only time I've ever locked any ongoing conversation thread even though Hermit continues to falsely claim I've locked multi-conversation threads). In any case if Sat "suggested" something to me that I had already done in no way can credibly be considered Sat manipulating me.

I don't actually recall whether Sat consulted me about dropping his rating of Hermit from a "5" to a "1" as Hermit claims he did. I do remember Sat watching the shitfest with interest, and I assume he was playing with his Meridion buttons throughout last year's ad hominems. I know at one point last year, Lucifer and Sat had reduced me from a "9" to a "7", and the.bricoleur had reduced me to a "1" (even though they've all gotten over it since and returned me to a "9"). I even lost my Archon status for a while. So if there was some 'cabal' at work, they were downrating me as much as they were downrating Hermit. In addition to being simply false, I don't find any claims that I was colluding with an alleged 'cabal' remotely credible. Beyond that, if anyone has any questions about such alleged conspiracies, I encourage you to ask Sat about it, because I wasn't part of any. I acted upfront and unilaterally. Anything others did after that is their business and not mine.
« Last Edit: 2011-03-06 10:52:27 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
Mermaid
Adept
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 7.35
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination
« Reply #9 on: 2011-03-08 00:23:19 »
Reply with quote

i dont think anyone cares or understands whatever it is that you have cut and pasted. please stop spamming.

i think it will serve all concerned if you could also please refrain from deleting, modifying and generally messing up existing threads.

please stop.

Report to moderator   Logged
MoEnzyme
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 8.84
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination
« Reply #10 on: 2011-03-08 07:22:22 »
Reply with quote

I can understand why Mermaid dislikes it when we put things where they belong, as her preference is to just shit everywhere and leave it to fester. For example this next paste-in of three messages appeared in the Saint Alan Turing Doctrine Section, even though it really doesn't have anything to do with Doctrine or Alan Turing

Quote:
Mermaid
Magister
Posts: 734
Reputation: 6.48
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!

     
   Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #57 on: 2011-03-07 23:28:24 »   
updating for hermit. please note last two sentences by Mo. because of my intervention, Mo will no longer be flogging this dead horse. so..it's official. stick a fork in it..it's done. Mo has better things to do. we have buried this..once and for all, hopefully. mo will not invoke your names or mine. he has "better things to do." nothing more to see here.

if anyone wants to send flowers to thank me, please message me.

from today's chat logs:

12:26:46  MoEnzyme 

MoEnzyme (~every1hz@[death to spam].99-10-220-20.lightspeed.rcsntx.sbcglobal.net) has joined #virus
12:28:20  Sat  good afternoon Mo
12:28:34  Sat  I mean Charlie.
12:28:44  Sat  * Sat chuckles
12:41:36  MoEnzyme  okay, Mermaid has now chimed in on the Alan Turing discussion, so now it's officially gone stupid.
12:45:48  Sat  she showed up here a little while ago. actually.
12:45:55  Sat  see logs
12:47:28  MoEnzyme  oh yeah.
12:47:31  MoEnzyme  I see now.
12:48:18  MoEnzyme  Well, she and Hermit sure do pay a lot of attention to me. Almost exclusively now in the CoV.
12:48:47  Sat  In the words of the great Skwisgar Skigelf, "Go homes, takes a shower, and wash the shames off a you, cos you suuuck!"
12:48:50  Sat  * Sat chuckles
12:48:59  Sat  It feel nice to be loved.
12:51:21  Sat  ^must
12:53:38  MoEnzyme  I think she's actually stalking Hermit. She doesn't ever chime in any more unless Hermit starts looking like he might actually be having a discussion.
12:54:20  MoEnzyme  And then she gets an overwhelming urge to inject drama and stupidity.
12:55:09  MoEnzyme  She never addresses me at all unless Hermit is somehow involved.
12:55:10  Sat  you guys are like the three stooges.
12:55:20  Sat  * Sat chuckles
12:57:59  Sat  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jocRd-aajW0
12:58:01  MoEnzyme  yeah, but it's nothing new, so I think I'll take a pass on responding this time. I hate to keep repeating myself.
12:58:08  Sat  * Sat nods
13:01:31  MoEnzyme  I was considering responding to Hermit, but now that his retarded side kick showed up, . . .
13:01:54  MoEnzyme  I think I've got better things to do.

[end cut and paste]

Report to moderator  Logged
Mermaid
Magister
Posts: 734
Reputation: 6.48
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!

     
   Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #58 on: 2011-03-07 23:39:32 »   
to everyone,

please vote and be the voice of reason. this has gone far enough and for too long.

http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=43693
Report to moderator  Logged


Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4239
Reputation: 8.34
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person

     
   Re:Saint Alan Turing
« Reply #59 on: Today at 02:04:20 »   
I know that you said to send flowers privately (and will), but we think you deserve public thanks not just for wading in so effectively, but even more so for giving the silly insults tossed your way by MoEnzyme all the attention they deserved. Which is to say, nothing.

Hermit&Co


Report to moderator  Logged
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999


I would rather assume that Hermit's last comment there was meant to be funny, because instead of giving my comments in the #virus IRC channel no attention, Mermaid thought it would be a good idea to fling them into the Doctrine section under the subject of Saint Alan Turing where they clearly didn't belong. That's why it is spam.

In any case, Hermit finally noticed what he called my "anti-homophobic stance", so I decided it was worth responding to Hermit to emphasize this since this misunderstanding was apparently the initial cause of our disagreement over a year ago. So perhaps Mermaid's celebration was a bit premature, but yes - I don't think I have much else to say now that Hermit has cleared up that much. I do continue to think Hermit's rationalizing this into issues of "gay icons", his perceptions of culture in America, and why this all means that he has to oppose the illumination of Saint Alan Turing as a saint in the Church of Virus remains patently absurd and makes a MUCH bigger issue of homophobia and homosexuality than necessary. That obsession is his business and not mine. I can only expect him to understand my point which I'm finally convinced that he does. So, unless Hermit has something more to say now that he understands me, I assume that the discussion is finally over.
« Last Edit: 2011-03-08 07:43:57 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
MoEnzyme
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 8.84
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination
« Reply #11 on: 2011-03-08 08:26:13 »
Reply with quote

Hermit mentions on the doctrine thread:

Quote:
3) MoEnzyme's allegations about my "updating" my post to "make it relevant" are as fallacious as most of his other assertions. My post was automatically relevant, as it responded to things said by him (the thread creator). In any case, due to technical issues (an unreliable computer), I generally post as soon as I realize that I have written a substantial amount, and then update my post as many times as needed, lest I lose what I have written. I don't usually bother to add a "Draft Flag" unless I expect the process will be interrupted. The negative implications imputed to this by MoEnzyme betrays his lack of Internet acumen, as, on most forums, including this one (see Hermitish Markup), it is regarded as entirely appropriate posting etiquette to edit your own post if it is the last on a thread, rather than appending additional posts making the thread longer (aka "bumping your own posts").


Okay. I'll accept this denial of spamming intent. Since the creation of this thread followed by the selective moving of my own posts and copying posts of Hermit's for context I think it's now clear which conversations don't belong in the Doctrine thread.

I will also count Mermaid's posting on this thread in addition to her creation of her new thread in the Free For All section (instead of the Doctrine section) that she does indeed understands where things belong and where they don't belong even as she chooses to continue spamming the Doctrine thread with off-topic ad hominems against me.

(16:25:30) PS - Hermit's response on the Doctrine thread to Mermaid's spam above, IS spam, however. For that reason, I'm going to decrement my Meridion rating of Hermit one point, from a "6" to a "5". I'll revisit that in a few days, because I think Hermit is capable of better even if Mermaid's spamming distracted him. He certainly could have made his reply to Mermaid in the Free for All section, either on this thread, or on the one which Mermaid created (I assume that second vote on her poll is his), but instead he chose to congratulate her spamming the doctrine thread. I would lower Mermaid's Meridion rating for this too, but the Meridion voting doesn't allow me to give her less than the "1" I've already given her.

« Last Edit: 2011-03-08 17:25:37 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
MoEnzyme
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 8.84
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination
« Reply #12 on: 2011-03-09 05:59:44 »
Reply with quote

Since Hermit and Mermaid have both begun complaining about the ways in which I use the BBS software in the ways in which it is intended to be used, I figured I would address that issue in this one post. Where did I learn how to do this? Well, first of all from Hermit himself. Hermit himself has used the delete message function MANY times to move entire threads from one part of the BBS to another. Indeed I have cooperated with him in his efforts to do this before when it was appropriate for a neater reading BBS and the results were good for everyone.

Now of course Hermit doesn't like me much anymore. I'm a "1" in his Meridion, so when I move coversations he simply refuses to cooperate. That's okay though, because I don't really need his cooperation. I can simply copy his posts as they are and paste them in. Since Hermit refuses to cooperate now, I have made extra efforts to leave notations and links between the old thread and and the new one, which is not something Hermit has generally done before himself when doing mass deletions and repostings. Most of the time it really didn't matter as they were threads which were only being read by the actual posters themselves, although I think my way is much better ettiquette than Hermit's way which could leave potential lurkers confused as to where the old thread went and where they can find the new one.

It especially becomes important where one participant refuses to move discussions to a more appropriate thread and would rather continue defecating in the wrong place instead. In any case that person is still at least on notice as to which topics will no longer be discussed, or where to go if he sincerely wishes to pursue that topic further. Furthermore, if he would rather move the discussion to another thread of his own creation, that option remains open as well. "Hermitish markup" may have been appropriate for the Church of Virus when it was an Email list, but this is a BBS now. I'd suggest that Hermit and Mermaid start using the BBS software more effectively the way it actually exists, instead of clinging to their future shock hangovers.
Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
MoEnzyme
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 8.84
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination
« Reply #13 on: 2011-03-11 22:31:48 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2011-03-08 08:26:13   
(16:25:30) PS - Hermit's response on the Doctrine thread to Mermaid's spam above, IS spam, however. For that reason, I'm going to decrement my Meridion rating of Hermit one point, from a "6" to a "5". I'll revisit that in a few days, because I think Hermit is capable of better even if Mermaid's spamming distracted him. He certainly could have made his reply to Mermaid in the Free for All section, either on this thread, or on the one which Mermaid created (I assume that second vote on her poll is his), but instead he chose to congratulate her spamming the doctrine thread. I would lower Mermaid's Meridion rating for this too, but the Meridion voting doesn't allow me to give her less than the "1" I've already given her.


I've revisited this previous decision re:Hermit, and here's my conclusion for now. Mermaid with Hermit's approval and encouragement as previously quoted above, has gone on to create her own troll poll, against me. This is in the free for all section so she's well in her rights, but she clearly would not be doing this if Hermit hadn't given his blessings. After almost a week she only has two votes, and one can only assume that those two votes are hers and Hermit's.

http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=43693;start=7

So aside from adding his spam to hers, it seems he's encourage trollish behavior on Mermaid's part. She's now started mining the #virus chatlogs for various out-of context nuggets whereby she's now implying that Sat is mentally ill in addition to me. I guess it's her free for all thread, so what the hell, but I think she needs some Meridion feedback. She's definitely entered Joe Dees territory whereby I have seriously started reconsidering my own Meridion ratings of others who seriously believe that Mermaid deserves to be considered a "Pillar of the Community" - which is the stated meaning in the Meridion polling system for the maximum "9" rating. Several people still have Mermaid at this high rating, although somewhat fewer than a month ago.

For the time being I'll assume that some of those remaining Mermaid fans simply haven't noticed her latest spamming and trollish behavior, and wish to remember Mermaid as she was before this whole shitfest which started over a year ago. Perhaps you may remember her before she and Hermit invented this phony "gay icon" criteria by which they then determined that Saint Alan Turing's illumination must either be opposed or abstained from. Well, now Mermaid has gone batshit for over a year, and Hermit has been key in encouraging this pathetic decline. It does sadden me as Hermit has done a lot for this community in the past, whereas Mermaid has only offered interesting comments. Now she's evolved into a trollish spammer and Hermit's has responded by offering her more public support and increasing his meridion rating of her.

So I look at Hermit's Meridion ratings of others and notice that as of this writing he rates Mermaid even more highly than he did before the Alan Turing illumination and gives her the maximum of "9". I simply can't ignore this any more, and I can't give Mermaid anything less than the "1" I've already given her. I can no longer avoid the conclusion that Hermit is indeed following Mermaid down the drain and into the sewer. I wish he would come to his senses, but I'm tired of holding my breath after more than a year of this crap. So it's with a sad heart that I'm going to decrement my rating of him further yet.

No, he's not a Joe Dees, whom I currently rate at a "3", and definitely not as far gone as Mermaid yet, but today I have to give him a "4", for teaming with Mermaid, for further dignifying her with a ridiculous rating of "9", and for encouraging her spamming and trolling behaviors on the Saint Alan Turing thread in the Doctrine section of the BBS.
« Last Edit: 2011-03-12 14:26:06 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
MoEnzyme
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 8.84
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Post Mortem conflicts re: 2010 Turing Illumination
« Reply #14 on: 2011-03-13 03:04:12 »
Reply with quote

Since my previous post, there has been some movement on others' ratings of Mermaid which have sufficiently moved her out of the category of "Magister" down to the "Initiate" class. I'm satisfied with that, such that I'm not going to hold my rating of Hermit down any longer, so I'm bumping Hermit back up to a "6" which net effect boosts him back in the "Archon" class. For the reasons stated in my previous message I'm not going to rate Hermit any higher for now, but I was just perusing the FAQ section of the BBS and remembering Hermit's good work there which is still helpful today, so I don't think I can continue in good conscience continue to rate him a "4".
« Last Edit: 2011-03-13 03:06:16 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
Pages: [1] 2 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed