[Eureka]

Irony? Please explain. I'm interested.

[tabacco]

Stop. You're not interested, you're trolling for an argument.

[Eureka]

No, i'm acutally interested. Stop assuming.

[Eureka]

Ok, whatever. I politely ask a few questions and that means i'm trolling.

Jack, you can PM me if you want to wrap up this discussion. That way, Mr. Tabacco doesn't accuse me of anything else.

[Jackal]

Since you asked publicly, I'll answer publicly, and if there's anything else to discuss after, we'll take it outside where the firing squad is waiting.

If you actually understood fascism, you'd know that anyone who had a legitimate reason to make such an accusation would never have the opportunity to do so (at least, not in the manner it was done here). That's the irony. Fascism isn't the watered-down, meaningless word you're hiding behind to complain about the existence of any authority at all.

Anyway, back to the real matter at hand, there are indeed boundaries here, and those that keep pushing to find them always do. Generally all the way to the outside of them.

[Eureka]

Ok...ok pretty good point, except you're missing on fact. Unless said fascist had some sort of machine that could predict what people were going to say before they said it, then yes, you're right, they'd be killed off or prevented from saying it before they did. Censorship is a big part of fascism, where somebody says something the said fascist didn't like, who then covers or destroys what that person said...for example, deleting a post after it were posted...and then destroying or controlling the person who said it, but only after they said it.

Sure, I won't be killed for saying what I say, and in that way, the fascism rule doesn't apply, but the censorship aspect does compare to that of fascists. Perhaps totalitarianism would have been a better word?

Anyway, thanks for indulging my curiosity on the subject. It's kind of cool applying systems of ruling on such a small scale.

[Jackal]

That sure looks like an argument to me. Guess Doug wasn't so wrong after all.

Regardless, your theorizing is entirely moot in this case. I told you (without deleting anything) to stop spamming a thread and you immediately did so again. I deleted it because it was further derailing a Site Feedback thread, which is for our benefit, not yours. When you know the guidelines and deliberately break them, expect there to be fallout no matter where you go. Surely even your fascist parents introduced you to that concept.

Also unlike fascism, of course, you're free to leave if you find the atmosphere so oppressive. We're not your government, so it doesn't matter what impressive sounding word you use. We're a privately run website. If you want to come into our house, then show some respect for the house rules.

And with that, I consider the matter closed.

[Eureka]

I disagree, and suddenly it's an argument? I guess I could see that, since arguments involve hostility, and there has been plenty of that coming from you and...whoever Doug is. So if it's an argument, you have no one to blame but yourself.

[Jackal]

You asked the question because you wanted to "disagree" with the answer. That's trolling, and it was obvious beforehand what you were doing. But we gave you the benefit of the doubt anyway, and you of course blew it.

[tabacco]

And for anyone who's wondering why he's now banned:

http://forums.adventuregamers.com/sh...3&postcount=15