How many consecutive posts will Blind Mellow Jelly make in this thread?

[Fenris]

at last

[Fenris]

you see the

[Fenris]

appeal and

[Fenris]

have finally

[Fenris]

come to

[Fenris]

The DARK SIDE!

[Fenris]

Also, that

[Fenris]

I have eaten

[Fenris]

the plums

[Fenris]

that were in

[Fenris]

the icebox

[Fenris]

and which

[Borborygmi]

PIGTAILS!!!!!!!!!!

[Fenris]

you were probably

[Fenris]

saving

[Fenris]

for breakfast

[Fenris]

Forgive me

[Fenris]

they were delicious

[Fenris]

so sweet

[Fenris]

and so cold

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Borborygmi

PIGTAILS!!!!!!!!!!

This post interrupted the flow of my art. BOX!

[Borborygmi]

Originally Posted by Fenris

This post interrupted the flow of my art. BOX!

We really need a Box rules/guidelines list. Somebody else suggest it this time, though.

[Fenris]

The first rule of the Box is that, excluding the sort of stuff Giraffe mentions in the forum sticky, there ARE no rules. Or guidelines. As a matter of fact, it's almost exactly what someone lobbied hard for*.

Anyone trying to suggest rules or guidelines is welcome to try, but people are also welcome to ignore the rules/guidelines and/or mock the person trying to establish them. Or follow them. Or intentionally break them. Or all of the above.

The lesser-known second rule of the Box is that it's always ok to fart in here. Burpy, for instance, is a master of this**

The third rule is that ALL MUST WORSHIP FENRIS! (This rule is often broken, but in my magnanimity, I find it in my mighty heart to forgive them.)

Then there's a bunch of other stuff, but the seventeenth and final rule is "They're prunes dammit, not "dried plums". Anyone using "dried plums" will be mocked."

*It's not exactly. See this exchange where Giraffe says that no forum will ever be 100% free of moderation.

**As everyone knows that a burp is a fart turned upside-down.

[Poo]

Originally Posted by Fenris

The first rule of the Box is that, excluding the sort of stuff Giraffe mentions in the forum sticky, there ARE no rules. Or guidelines. As a matter of fact, it's almost exactly what someone lobbied hard for*.

I don't appreciate you stalking me.

[running coach]

Originally Posted by Fenris

The third rule is that ALL MUST WORSHIP FENRIS! (This rule is often broken, but in my magnanimity, I find it in my mighty heart to forgive them.)

It may have looked like I was mooning you but that's how I worship The Mighty Fenris.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by Poo

I don't appreciate you stalking me.

I'm sitting here pondering the irony of this post.

It's just going to be easier to put her on ignore.

Roo, have a nice life.

[Borborygmi]

Originally Posted by Fenris

The first rule of the Box is that, excluding the sort of stuff Giraffe mentions in the forum sticky, there ARE no rules. Or guidelines. As a matter of fact, it's almost exactly what someone lobbied hard for*.

Come on now, be fair... that post is from 5-1/2 years ago. I'm sure that poster has mellowed out by now.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by running coach

It may have looked like I was mooning you but that's how I worship The Mighty Fenris.

THIS IS ACCEPTABLE. I ACCEPT YOUR PUNY WORSHIP AND WILL ALLOW YOU TO REMAIN BOX-FREE FOR AN HOUR OR TWO!

[Glazer]

Originally Posted by running coach

It may have looked like I was mooning you but that's how I worship The Mighty Fenris.

I always salute him.

[Dire Wolf]

Originally Posted by Fenris

THIS IS ACCEPTABLE. I ACCEPT YOUR PUNY WORSHIP AND WILL ALLOW YOU TO REMAIN BOX-FREE FOR AN HOUR OR TWO!

Posting only in the box is a privilege to be earned. By saluting Fenris in the most commonly used phrase in American Sign Language (ASL).

Haven't once posted outside the box since I registered this fancy new sock puppet.

"I sure wish I could do that!"
"You might have to pet him some first."

[tar503]

Originally Posted by Chacoguy

I'm sitting here pondering the irony of this post.

It's just going to be easier to put her on ignore.

Roo, have a nice life.

I'm not saying you shouldn't put Roo on ignore, but you do realize that this poster's name was Poo, right @Chacoguy?

[Blind Mellow Jelly]

That fucker is the biggest troll here.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by Chacoguy

I'm sitting here pondering the irony of this post.

It's just going to be easier to put her on ignore.

Now that was funny. How bad can it actually get? You might end up mistaking a sock puppet for yourself. Or you may find yourself responding to it.

Originally Posted by Hitler

... or you might end up blathering incoherently from the penalty box on an obscure messageboard.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by -FX-

Now that was funny. How bad can it actually get? You might end up mistaking a sock puppet for yourself. Or you may find yourself responding to it.

LOL. That was awesome!

Talk to the hand. . .talking to the hand. Then forgetting which hand.

Originally Posted by Borborygmi

We really need a Box rules/guidelines list. Somebody else suggest it this time, though.

What a great idea! Someone else can champion a non-existent concept.

Originally Posted by Borborygmi

Come on now, be fair... that post is from 5-1/2 years ago. I'm sure that poster has mellowed out by now.

That's just silly. What would make anyone think that?

Originally Posted by drewtwo99

I'm not saying you shouldn't put Roo on ignore,

That would be my dream come true if he put me on ignore.

drew, I'll fill you in on this one. Poo is Chacoguy's sock (Hitler is another one) that he's used for years to follow me around the board. You can read more about it here and here, if you're interested.

Originally Posted by Blind Mellow Jelly

That fucker is the biggest troll here.

Yep.

[Rat Diva]

Originally Posted by Fenris

This post interrupted the flow of my art. BOX!

I love this place.

[Scuba Ben]

Originally Posted by Fenris

This post interrupted the flow of my art. BOX!

I think you confused Borby with @The Poster Formerly Known as Opal;. (Assuming I have the name right.)

[-FX-]

You take a forum that allows puppets, and has an almost rule free zone, you get chaos and madness.

Which is way more entertaining than a forum with vague rules and Mods who take things personally.

In either case, is still don't mean shit.

[Scuba Ben]

Originally Posted by Scuba Ben

I think you confused Borby with @The Artist formerly known as Opal;. (Assuming I have the name right.)

FTF myself.

Edited to change: Mention doesn't like that name, even though I copied it from the member list. Eh.

[Rat Diva]

Maybe because of the semicolon? @The Artist formerly known as Opal

edit: Nopers. I guess TAFKAO is just unmentionable.

[Borborygmi]

Originally Posted by Rat_Diva

Maybe because of the semicolon? @The Artist formerly known as Opal

Professinalled that for you.

[Scuba Ben]

Thanks, Borby. I'd praise you if the Geeb had the praise/blame add-in. (Because there's no way we would ever abuse that. Nope, nuh-uh.)

[Roo]

Originally Posted by -FX-

You take a forum that allows puppets, and has an almost rule free zone, you get chaos and madness.

Which is way more entertaining than a forum with vague rules and Mods who take things personally.

The thing is, you can put chaos and madness on ignore.

You can't put boring on ignore.*

btw, for those people who didn't know this (until someone figures out how to change it), you can put mods/admins on ignore. It's said that you do so at your own risk, but from what I recall, no one has been given any notice before they were banned, so it doesn't matter much. Most of the mod instructions for Boxings have been for joke Boxings.

*some people think that watching grass grow is exciting, so there's that. To each their own.

[Borborygmi]

Originally Posted by Roo

btw, for those people who didn't know this (until someone figures out how to change it), you can put mods/admins on ignore. It's said that you do so at your own risk, but from what I recall, no one has been given any notice before they were banned, so it doesn't matter much. Most of the mod instructions for Boxings have been for joke Boxings.

Bolding mine. I believe members are allowed to put mods/admins on Ignore by design, rather than from the staff's inability to fix or work around some sort of perceived bug. Allow me to link to years old threads like a crazy person... in this thread, it is clear that Giraffe intends to allow for moderators to be put on Ignore; Post #16 in particular suggests he was successful in implementing this at the time except for The Game Room moderators, which he intended to resolve in a bit. You may be remembering this older post of Giraffe's in which he describes a vB setting for allowing/disallowing users to ignore moderators but suggests he didn't know the full history of how it was set. Just wanted to get this post in to set the record straight before I am capriciously banned without any warni

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Borborygmi

Bolding mine. I believe members are allowed to put mods/admins on Ignore by design, rather than from the staff's inability to fix or work around some sort of perceived bug. Allow me to link to years old threads like a crazy person... in this thread, it is clear that Giraffe intends to allow for moderators to be put on Ignore; Post #16 in particular suggests he was successful in implementing this at the time except for The Game Room moderators, which he intended to resolve in a bit. You may be remembering this older post of Giraffe's in which he describes a vB setting for allowing/disallowing users to ignore moderators but suggests he didn't know the full history of how it was set. Just wanted to get this post in to set the record straight before I am capriciously banned without any warni

Wow.

You did all that work to get in a dig about my linking to one old comment that I remembered of yours that was on point a couple days ago?

I wasn't implying it was a bug or that it needed fixing. There was a bit more history than you're showing here, but I'm not as interested as you are in digging it up or even explaining it.

Haha, like you could ever get banned. You have enough brownie points stored up to last your lifetime.

[Borborygmi]

Originally Posted by Roo

Wow.

You did all that work to get in a dig about my linking to one old comment that I remembered of yours that was on point a couple days ago?

I wasn't implying it was a bug or that it needed fixing. There was a bit more history than you're showing here, but I'm not as interested as you are in digging it up or even explaining it.

It wasn't much work. Your take on the Ignore feature didn't jibe with my memory and I was curious enough to go back and look. At that point I indeed thought it would be fun/timely to get a dig in on you... but not for linking to a single old post of mine a couple of days ago, but rather your overall history of linking to super-old stuff for rhetorical purposes. Which often makes me .

Originally Posted by Roo

Haha, like you could ever get banned. You have enough brownie points stored up to last your lifetime.

Whew!

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Borborygmi

It wasn't much work. Your take on the Ignore feature didn't jibe with my memory and I was curious enough to go back and look. At that point I indeed thought it would be fun/timely to get a dig in on you... but not for linking to a single old post of mine a couple of days ago, but rather your overall history of linking to super-old stuff for rhetorical purposes. Which often makes me .

OK, whatever. Just you trying to bring up old history to pretend that I bring up old history. See any irony?

What makes me astonished is how you continue to carry on this old snark for as long as you have. It's your overall history of posting super-old snark for rhetorical purposes. Most of it was based on nonsense and misleading information. Yet you won't let it go, even when it doesn't have any meaning.

[Borborygmi]

Well, yes, irony is what I was going for there.

Anyways: I would not be trading unpleasantries with you right now if you had shrugged off my earlier "Man, The Box has a lot of rules nowadays" comment. Which is not to say you shouldn't have called me out on it if you felt wronged by it... but it was a run-of-the-mill poke-the-Boxee-with-a-stick post, not to mention that I thought it was pretty apt given the scolding you gave drew for his posts immediately followed by the pleading to BMJ to change his way of posting, too. It seemed like there were rules that you — as perhaps the most conspicuous poster in The Box — had in mind that your fellow posters were not following.

I'm working under the belief that you understood that was my point, yet asked me for clarification. If that was not your understanding, then I apologize for escalating. But it's my belief that you asked for clarification only to provoke an argument, and then spun off my clarification (admittedly a snarky clarification) into its own thread in order to expand the argument. If so, then you don't get to be astonished that I am being snarky with you and that I 'won't let it go' after asking for it and creating a thread with my name in the title for the purpose of it.

In an earlier post in this thread I gave you a laundry list of criticisms about your posting to this thread. I read your post immediately above to mean that you believe I am mechanically regurgitating old snarky tropes about you that are 'based on nonsense and misleading information'. My intent was actually to cite current examples of your posts that play into those old tropes, as I believe your reputation is well-earned and you are not aware of when you are playing into that reputation. Take that or leave it as you see fit.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Borborygmi

Anyways: I would not be trading unpleasantries with you right now if you had shrugged off my earlier "Man, The Box has a lot of rules nowadays" comment. Which is not to say you shouldn't have called me out on it if you felt wronged by it... but it was a run-of-the-mill poke-the-Boxee-with-a-stick post,

So you're saying that you'll continue to snark and hassle me until I allow you to take your potshots at me unanswered because since I'm in the Box, I'm somehow required to allow you to snark on me?

Why do you think that's right?

Originally Posted by Borborygmi

But it's my belief that you asked for clarification only to provoke an argument

I'm not interested in arguing with you, talking with you or interacting with you at all. I'm not entertained by any of this.

You're the one continually showing up in threads unprovoked where I post to take potshots at me. I was just trying to understand why you're doing it, but you don't seem to have an answer to that.

If you're going to drop into a thread to take a snipe at me, then I'm going to answer it. If you stop doing that, I'll stop engaging with you at all.

[Borborygmi]

Nice selective quoting, Roo. Yes, Bid Bad Borborygmi continually shows up in your threads to victimize innocent Roo while she sits peaceably in the VIP forum.

I have my CP set up to automatically subscribe to threads in which I post. So it happens to be easy for me to search to find out which of your threads I have posted in. I have posted in 7 out of the last 100 threads you started. And although I didn't pursue it further I'm confident that not all 7 are ones in which I'm snarking you.

I will snark and hassle you as much as I wish. Per above, this is clearly not often. But it is fair game for those of us who are not Boxed to occasionally rattle the cages of those who are; it is hard-coded into the forum description. And my "Man, The Box has a lot of rules nowadays" post from this thread isn't just snark for snark's sake; it was a commentary on how damned annoying I found your posting in this thread. It didn't even call you out by name, but go ahead and couch it as if I'm badmouthing you at every turn.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Borborygmi

I have my CP set up to automatically subscribe to threads in which I post. So it happens to be easy for me to search to find out which of your threads I have posted in. I have posted in 7 out of the last 100 threads you started. And although I didn't pursue it further I'm confident that not all 7 are ones in which I'm snarking you.

What is this supposed to show? You've been hassling me in threads other people start, like this thread that I didn't start. Those numbers don't show anything. But I really don't understand why you think you should be allowed to snark and hassle me as long as it's infrequently.

Originally Posted by Borborygmi

I will snark and hassle you as much as I wish.

You're making that really clear.

Originally Posted by Borborygmi

Per above, this is clearly not often. But it is fair game for those of us who are not Boxed to occasionally rattle the cages of those who are; it is hard-coded into the forum description. And my "Man, The Box has a lot of rules nowadays" post from this thread isn't just snark for snark's sake; it was a commentary on how damned annoying I found your posting in this thread. It didn't even call you out by name, but go ahead and couch it as if I'm badmouthing you at every turn.

You're using the forum description as an excuse to absolve yourself from your actions. That's your choice, but it is a choice.

If I bother you so much that you need to rattle my cage, why do you continue to read my posts?

ETA: Before you turn that around and ask why I read your posts, your posts are about me. My posts aren't about you.