I remember that vividly. Indeed, it wasn't me referring to him as having pedophilic tendencies that got me banned. That was weeks ago, and I made my point. The ban actually happened when I jokingly implied the number of highly superfluous and unnecessary ellipses SF1900 uses in some of his thread titles was roughly analogous to the number of instances he'd viewed underage material online. That post got deleted and I was kicked off. But they left the material about prime alone, for the same reason they didn't delete illuminati's posts about pellius to the same effect: It's true.
LOL…
I’m certainly no fan of SF1900, but I can’t justifiably comment on his entire post history because I honestly ignore most of the shit he posts because it’s useless, stupid bullshit.
Having said that, I never endorsed - or even agreed with - going after anyone on here unfoundedly. For example: I don’t care for Basile, but I also never liked guys accusing him of pedo shit because I never personally saw incontrovertible evidence of it in the time I’ve been here since 2006.
Furthermore, I can count on one hand and have fingers left over the times I’ve interacted with Pellius. Based on my limited personal experience, he seems like a good cat. Some folks here have pointed out some questionable posts in his history. Again: maybe there’s something there, but I’m not qualified to comment either way.
A short time ago, I gave prime a hard time over some comments I personally saw he made defending pedophiles because, in my book, that doesn’t sit right with me. He tried explaining/dismissing/rationalizing it as some kind of mental disorder, etc., and it took a long time and a great collective effort to get him to finally concede that pedophilia is bad/wrong.
Intentional or not, prime is controversial by many folks’ standards. I enjoy confronting him on issues, but I don’t believe he is a “bad” person by any means. I suspect he enjoys playing devil's advocate, and that’s cool. Or, maybe he’s just got a very different belief set. That’s cool, too. However, I DON’T believe that everyone deserves the benefit of doubt, and I will publicly speak out against such muther-fukkers.
My point is: accusations need to be founded. They need a base. You can’t accuse someone of something simply because they’re odd or different. There was a poster here years ago who went by the handle “garebear.” We ran him off because of
DIRECT EVIDENCE he was a sick piece of shit.
The “council elders” here are both subjective and objective, if that make sense. They’ve got opinions, but consider everything before making a decision
(more objective than me). They do what they genuinely believe is right. That is why they are appointed to that role - like it or not.
That’s just how it is.
