Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

R0b1Billion is back...

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 9:42:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
After 1,000 years in Hades, I have returned from the dead to smite the souls of the DDO capitalists. I am retiring Lasagna along with Caramel, and my banned "Rob1billion."
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 9:50:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 9:42:46 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
After 1,000 years in Hades, I have returned from the dead to smite the souls of the DDO capitalists. I am retiring Lasagna along with Caramel, and my banned "Rob1billion."

1) Why change accounts?

2) Why make it public?

3) ???

4) PROFIT!!!
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 10:14:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 9:42:46 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
After 1,000 years in Hades, I have returned from the dead to smite the souls of the DDO capitalists. I am retiring Lasagna along with Caramel, and my banned "Rob1billion."

Cool Avatar, Bro
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 11:03:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 9:45:19 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Why were you banned?

Well this was before Juggle took over, and the mods were absolutely fvcking retarded. They gave you two strikes before you got banned. I used the first by replying to some comment that was vulgar and saying that it was inappropriate. Because I hit "reply," the inappropriate comment was in my post and they hit me for it. But yeah, I only replied to tell the person they were out of line yet the retards running the site blamed me.

The second came when I posted a pic that was sexually suggestive. If you've looked through enough internet spam you've probably seen it; it's a skinny, drunk redneck looking guy laying on top of a really old woman with her teeth in a glass in front of them. You can't see any inappropriate parts because they are conveniently positioned so I didn't think anything of it when I posted it.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 11:10:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 9:50:17 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/9/2012 9:42:46 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
After 1,000 years in Hades, I have returned from the dead to smite the souls of the DDO capitalists. I am retiring Lasagna along with Caramel, and my banned "Rob1billion."

1) Why change accounts?

2) Why make it public?

3) ???

4) PROFIT!!!

After I got banned I started a new one right away named "Caramel" (the name of my dog), and I wasn't sure if I could get away with making a similar name to just get rebanned Askbob style. I ended that account when I started fearing for my identity, realizing that anyone who wanted to check on me could link my FB with my DDO account. I predicted that companies would start hiring firms to dig up dirt on potential applicants, and the last thing I wanted a potential employer knowing is that I'm a renegade anarchist by night on DDO. At that point I created "Lasagna" (a vaginal reference) to try and protect my identity. Now that I've deleted my Facebook profile and I've relaxed my career ambitions, I'm not quite as concerned about the security of my identity and am going to go back to my original name which has always been the most fitting.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 11:12:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 10:14:31 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/9/2012 9:42:46 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
After 1,000 years in Hades, I have returned from the dead to smite the souls of the DDO capitalists. I am retiring Lasagna along with Caramel, and my banned "Rob1billion."

Cool Avatar, Bro

Where is Orakio? It's been 1,000 years, but I'd know his black sword anywhere!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 9:58:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 11:03:49 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The second came when I posted a pic that was sexually suggestive. If you've looked through enough internet spam you've probably seen it; it's a skinny, drunk redneck looking guy laying on top of a really old woman with her teeth in a glass in front of them. You can't see any inappropriate parts because they are conveniently positioned so I didn't think anything of it when I posted it.

You got banned for suggestive pictures in your avvie? Erm, better go change mine...
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 10:56:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Lasagna" (a vaginal reference)
Wat.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 10:58:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 9:58:17 PM, TUF wrote:
At 8/9/2012 11:03:49 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The second came when I posted a pic that was sexually suggestive. If you've looked through enough internet spam you've probably seen it; it's a skinny, drunk redneck looking guy laying on top of a really old woman with her teeth in a glass in front of them. You can't see any inappropriate parts because they are conveniently positioned so I didn't think anything of it when I posted it.

You got banned for suggestive pictures in your avvie? Erm, better go change mine...

It sounds like his avvie suggested nudity. The rule seems to be "the naughty bits have to be covered with cloth", which yours fits?

I.e., there's a difference between a picture of someone wearing a bikini, and a picture of someone with a bikini being held conveniently in front of them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 11:12:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 10:58:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2012 9:58:17 PM, TUF wrote:
At 8/9/2012 11:03:49 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The second came when I posted a pic that was sexually suggestive. If you've looked through enough internet spam you've probably seen it; it's a skinny, drunk redneck looking guy laying on top of a really old woman with her teeth in a glass in front of them. You can't see any inappropriate parts because they are conveniently positioned so I didn't think anything of it when I posted it.

You got banned for suggestive pictures in your avvie? Erm, better go change mine...

It sounds like his avvie suggested nudity. The rule seems to be "the naughty bits have to be covered with cloth", which yours fits?

I.e., there's a difference between a picture of someone wearing a bikini, and a picture of someone with a bikini being held conveniently in front of them.

0.0 Zen master of pornography Ragnar has spoken!
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 11:13:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 6:45:13 PM, Viper-King wrote:
Welcome back, Lasagna! Have you met with CosmicAlfonzo again?

No, but you're more than welcome to if you'd like...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 11:14:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 10:58:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2012 9:58:17 PM, TUF wrote:
At 8/9/2012 11:03:49 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The second came when I posted a pic that was sexually suggestive. If you've looked through enough internet spam you've probably seen it; it's a skinny, drunk redneck looking guy laying on top of a really old woman with her teeth in a glass in front of them. You can't see any inappropriate parts because they are conveniently positioned so I didn't think anything of it when I posted it.

You got banned for suggestive pictures in your avvie? Erm, better go change mine...

It sounds like his avvie suggested nudity. The rule seems to be "the naughty bits have to be covered with cloth", which yours fits?

I.e., there's a difference between a picture of someone wearing a bikini, and a picture of someone with a bikini being held conveniently in front of them.

You can say there is, I suppose, but I don't really acknowledge any major difference.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 11:40:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 11:14:42 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 8/10/2012 10:58:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2012 9:58:17 PM, TUF wrote:
At 8/9/2012 11:03:49 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The second came when I posted a pic that was sexually suggestive. If you've looked through enough internet spam you've probably seen it; it's a skinny, drunk redneck looking guy laying on top of a really old woman with her teeth in a glass in front of them. You can't see any inappropriate parts because they are conveniently positioned so I didn't think anything of it when I posted it.

You got banned for suggestive pictures in your avvie? Erm, better go change mine...

It sounds like his avvie suggested nudity. The rule seems to be "the naughty bits have to be covered with cloth", which yours fits?

I.e., there's a difference between a picture of someone wearing a bikini, and a picture of someone with a bikini being held conveniently in front of them.

You can say there is, I suppose, but I don't really acknowledge any major difference.

There are three different possible schema that could be invoked in a nudity control scheme.

One: The visual test. What skin is showing in the image you see? Your avvie would have been allowed under this test (unless it restricted things like bellies and such, but covering things other than naughty bits with this test implies being much more explicit about one's policy, lest people find themselves afraid to post faces), but is not allowed. Hence, this is not the test.

Two: The omniscient test. Whether or not the nudie bits are exposed by the image itself, does the image depict someone whose nudie bits exposed from any direction? This is the one I think is being applied here, and it seems consistent with a cover-your-arse-legally sort of perspective that businessmen like Phil or Juggle might take. (The visual test is also consistent with it, but we have already established that is not the test).

Three: The intent of the image-- is it intended to titillate with thoughts of naughty bits. This is the thing people who are genuinely internally anti-porn, as a personal rather than business matter, might care about. But it's pretty hard to parse for legalistic cover-your-arse purposes.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2012 12:53:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 11:40:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2012 11:14:42 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 8/10/2012 10:58:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2012 9:58:17 PM, TUF wrote:
At 8/9/2012 11:03:49 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The second came when I posted a pic that was sexually suggestive. If you've looked through enough internet spam you've probably seen it; it's a skinny, drunk redneck looking guy laying on top of a really old woman with her teeth in a glass in front of them. You can't see any inappropriate parts because they are conveniently positioned so I didn't think anything of it when I posted it.

You got banned for suggestive pictures in your avvie? Erm, better go change mine...

It sounds like his avvie suggested nudity. The rule seems to be "the naughty bits have to be covered with cloth", which yours fits?

I.e., there's a difference between a picture of someone wearing a bikini, and a picture of someone with a bikini being held conveniently in front of them.

You can say there is, I suppose, but I don't really acknowledge any major difference.

There are three different possible schema that could be invoked in a nudity control scheme.

One: The visual test. What skin is showing in the image you see? Your avvie would have been allowed under this test (unless it restricted things like bellies and such, but covering things other than naughty bits with this test implies being much more explicit about one's policy, lest people find themselves afraid to post faces), but is not allowed. Hence, this is not the test.

Two: The omniscient test. Whether or not the nudie bits are exposed by the image itself, does the image depict someone whose nudie bits exposed from any direction? This is the one I think is being applied here, and it seems consistent with a cover-your-arse-legally sort of perspective that businessmen like Phil or Juggle might take. (The visual test is also consistent with it, but we have already established that is not the test).

Three: The intent of the image-- is it intended to titillate with thoughts of naughty bits. This is the thing people who are genuinely internally anti-porn, as a personal rather than business matter, might care about. But it's pretty hard to parse for legalistic cover-your-arse purposes.

Well they were both definitely naked, but concealed by the table and glass (that had the woman's teeth in it) so I'd only pass #1, although I didn't know that any other criteria existed. I mean, on a site like this, we're gonna occasionally talk about sex and get lude with it so I see no point in making it any stricter than #1. And it wasn't my avatar, it was just a single link that would have been soon forgotten...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.