Nicks vs. Buckingham

[Moony]

Who has the longest and thickest toenails?

[lagringader&r]

Who has the longest and thickest toenails?

I'm going with Nicks on that one. Perfectly manicured too. Ok, who has the nose hair? Nicks or Buckingham?

But the burning question on everybody's minds: which would win in a fight? Nicks or Buckingham. My money is on Nicks.

[Moony]

I'm going with Nicks on that one. Perfectly manicured too. Ok, who has the nose hair? Nicks or Buckingham?

But the burning question on everybody's minds: which would win in a fight? Nicks or Buckingham. My money is on Nicks.

1. Stevie. She has some long ones... buy a trimmer, woman!

2. Stevie would totally win in a fight. She'd uppercut Lindsey with her tambourine and then choke him with chiffon while performing a naked war dance thanking Rhiannon for her strength.

Next question....

Who does God love more? Stevie or Lindsey?

[lagringader&r]

1. Stevie. She has some long ones... buy a trimmer, woman!

2. Stevie would totally win in a fight. She'd uppercut Lindsey with her tambourine and then choke him with chiffon while performing a naked war dance thanking Rhiannon for her strength.

Right again. And then she'd twirl on his strat.

[Moony]

It's a fair cop.

[Mari]

You're all wrong. Stevie might win the physical fight, but after that when she sees Lindsey feeling all sorry for himself and blaming her for having such sharp nails she'll let him be the winner anyway.
She's a woman!

[Miss Vicky]

I know nothing of either one's toenails.

However, I think Lindsey might win a physical fight. All he'd have to do is flail his arms around a la "Come" and hit her upside the head. Then she'd topple over in her big ol' boots and weighed down with all that chiffon and crash to the floor. :lol:

[David]

But the burning question on everybody's minds: which would win in a fight? Nicks or Buckingham. My money is on Nicks.Oh please. Miss Grannykins couldn't fight her way out of a paper bag. She'd be about equally matched with Queen Elizabeth.

I always did want to see Marjorie Main get Granny Stevie in a wrestling chokehold.

[Johnny Stew]

Oh please. Miss Grannykins couldn't fight her way out of a paper bag.Stevie doesn't need to be able to fight.
Not when she can have one of her hangers-on do it.

Now that's living! :nod:

[GateandGarden]

Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV, and you think you're so clever and classless and free, but you're still f*cking peasents as far as I can see.Love that song.

[David]

Stevie doesn't need to be able to fight.
Not when she can have one of her hangers-on do it.

Now that's living! :nod:Johnny, you gotta admit: wouldn't you love seeing Stevie Nicks & Marjorie Main in a wrestling match?

http://michellevogel.com/Images-Books/Main.jpg

[Johnny Stew]

Johnny, you gotta admit: wouldn't you love seeing Stevie Nicks & Marjorie Main in a wrestling match?

http://michellevogel.com/Images-Books/Main.jpgYou know, when you first said Marjorie Main, I thought of Ma Kettle... but then I thought I was wrong, and that Ma Kettle was actually Marjorie Lord.

Hmm. Who was Marjorie Lord then, and how do I know her? :confused:

(Oh, and I personally think it would be a hoot to watch Ma Kettle wrestle ANYONE. :nod: )

[ReFleetwoodMac]

Ah. My very own tribute thread. I gotta say, it was a harrowing few days. But the moderators here being the untrusting, power drunken control freaks that they are, disposed of me with absolutely no evidence or common sense backing up their wild claims. Although they make a good omelet.

[Johnny Stew]

Ah-ha... a quick visit to IMDB.com, and the mystery's solved. Marjorie Lord was on 'Make Room For Daddy.'

Two VERY different Marjories! :o

[strandinthewind]

. . . Marjorie Lord was on 'Make Room For Daddy' . . . .

She did porn :eek:

[Johnny Stew]

But the moderators here being the untrusting, power drunken control freaks that they are, disposed of me with absolutely no evidence or common sense backing up their wild claims.Perhaps you'd like to let folks know that you and Lux had both used the "Schmoopy" ID, and that the matching IPs which resulted from that are why you were mistakenly banned.

Unless you'd rather stick with the "power-mad moderators" angle?

[Johnny Stew]

And second of all, that's not the only accusation sent my way. But I shan't elaborate to protect the innocent, because I assume you are aware of the other claims.Ah, yes, the identical threads that were posted (about four times) and re-posted even after they had been moved.

[lagringader&r]

Seeing as how I was never given any sort of reason directly for why my membership was terminated because it was so conviently sent only to other parties, I may be missing something. But from what I've been told, the reasons had nothing to do with that thread. I merely got a warning for that thread about a week ago - well before I was banished into the cold night air.

I hope I'm not the only one to say WELCOME BACK, BOBO. Maybe I should start a thread. And on your birthday too! That sucksssss. I don't understand the whole Schmoopy thing but it was you and Lux just using it as an alternate name thing? Anyway, I'm glad you're back. Still want to do the Cool Whip thing?

[gldstwmn]

Although they make a good omelet.

Thanks. We try.

[Johnny Stew]

Seeing as how I was never given any sort of reason directly for why my membership was terminated because it was so conviently sent only to other parties, I may be missing something. But from what I've been told, the reasons had nothing to do with that thread.That's exactly right. But you mentioned "other accusations," which I took to be a reference to the warning you received in regards to those threads.

At any rate, your username was banned because of the shared IP between you, "Schmoopy" and Lux. It was initially thought that "ReFleetwoodMac" was also a secondary ID being used in the same manner as "Schmoopy."
Which is why an explanation was given to Lux, as opposed to you.

[lagringader&r]

Oh please. Miss Grannykins couldn't fight her way out of a paper bag. She'd be about equally matched with Queen Elizabeth.



I think Lindsey WOULD be the equivalent of Queen Elizabeth in a fight.

[amber]

So, what was the mistake? Why does he get to come back? Was it because it was his birthday? If him and lux were doing it, why wasn't lux banned and then let back? Why do people use two addresses? What's the point? If they want to talk to themselves, can't they just do it with their own name? Or in the privacy of their homes like I do?
I'd like that omelet now, please. :)

Edit - wait, so you just banned "schmoopy", who still actually exists as both Refleetwoodmac and lux, but is not an actual person?

[ontheEdgeof17]

Is this board talk?

Seems like it should be a PM conversation.

[gldstwmn]

Is this board talk?

Seems like it should be a PM conversation.

That's a valid point.

[amber]

Is this board talk?

Seems like it should be a PM conversation.
shhhhh! I want to know about it! What's your problem??? You are soooo not nosy. :mad:
:lol:
although, really, why would you care if they talk here?

[amber]

That's a valid point.
oh, thanks a lot, Curtis. If you just minded your own business, I wouldn't be in this predicament. :mad:
:lol: :xoxo:

[Johnny Stew]

Is this board talk?

Seems like it should be a PM conversation.You're absolutely right, Curtis.

ReFleetwoodMac brought it up publicly, so I answered publicly.
But it is better suited for a private conversation.

[gldstwmn]

You're absolutely right, Curtis.

ReFleetwoodMac brought it up publicly, so I answered publicly.
But it is better suited for a private conversation.

No, no, no Johnny. I meant the conversations going on that don't make any sense, not your dialogue with RFM.

[amber]

You're absolutely right, Curtis.

ReFleetwoodMac brought it up publicly, so I answered publicly.
But it is better suited for a private conversation.
well, don't you think the rest of us should understand so that...uh...we can avoid the same pitfalls? I mean, me and my friend were just going to make up a new user name and share it. Should we not do that? If we did, would the new shared identity be banned, or one or both of us? If one, why one?
:D

[lagringader&r]

well, don't you think the rest of us should understand so that...uh...we can avoid the same pitfalls? I mean, me and my friend were just going to make up a new user name and share it. Should we not do that? If we did, would the new shared identity be banned, or one or both of us? If one, why one?
:D

That's a good point. So is it that you're not supposed to have two user names or that two peeps can't share one (like Lux and Bobo did as *Schmoopy*)? Why is it bad either way?

[David]

Ah, yes, the identical threads that were posted (about four times) and re-posted even after they had been moved.And Bobo even sent me a PM that was very disturbing.

[Johnny Stew]

Multiple IDs are frowned open for various reasons (including the fact that they clutter up the system).

If they're used for "harmless" purposes, they're simply removed and the main user is issued a warning.

When they're used for the harrassment of other Ledgies or the perpetuation of arguments and feuds, the ID is removed and the main user receives a strike.

Lux was not issued a strike because "Schmoopy" was being used for relatively harmless reasons. But, in removing "Schmoopy," we mistakenly thought that "ReFleetwoodMac" was also a secondary ID (because of the matching IP address) rather than an individual user, and that username was banned, too. When the situation was explained, ReFleetwoodMac was immediately reinstated.

Personally, I don't see why anyone needs another ID anyway. One username should be all anyone needs to post their messages.
And if folks are just looking to play games and mess around, they should give AIM, Yahoo, ICQ or any of the various other messenger programs and chatrooms a try, rather than using up our bandwidth (which results in outages to our service).

[lagringader&r]

I hope this gets read coz I don't see why peeps are ganging up on Bobo. I've talked to Bobo on AIM and we turned on *voice* and he is a really, really nice guy. He's normal too but his sense of humor is really off the wall. David, I'm not saying that you're wrong but do you think that off the wall might be confused with disturbing? I just don't see what Bobo did wrong except for the user name thing and isn't that name gone now? I just don't like to see peeps get picked on coz they're *different*. Not fair.

[lagringader&r]

And Bobo even sent me a PM that was very disturbing.

One more thing. I really like you and you always make me laugh but why did you publicly post this. Is it ok for me to reveal the identity of the poster who sent me a very hurtful and disturbing pm after I used the term *hard on* in a post? I never revealed his identity here and I really don't know why. Maybe I should and tell everybody exactly what he said to me over that one little post. I don't get it. The guy's an a**hole but I didn't see the need to drag him through the mud even though he dragged me through it in private. Should I?

[Johnny Stew]

Is it ok for me to reveal the identity of the poster who sent me a very hurtful and disturbing pmI've said it before, and I'll repeat it... if someone receives an improper PM (harrassing, threatening, unwanted sexual advances, etc.) through the Ledge's private messaging system, please be sure to report it to one of the moderators.

Our messaging system is not meant to be abused, and we'll put a stop to it so you won't have to continue dealing with it.

[Sugar]

I hope this gets read coz I don't see why peeps are ganging up on Bobo.

Do you mean the mods? No one's ganging up on him. The only reason his account got deleted with no warning is because we thought it was just one of Lux's multiple IDs. When we realized he was in fact a real person, he was reinstated.

[lagringader&r]

Do you mean the mods? No one's ganging up on him. The only reason his account got deleted with no warning is because we thought it was just one of Lux's multiple IDs. When we realized he was in fact a real person, he was reinstated.

Ok maybe I misunderstood. Sorry. I just don't get the whole user name thing I guess.

[David]

David, I'm not saying that you're wrong but do you think that off the wall might be confused with disturbing?Could be. I knew I was being toyed with. But I got really disturbed when Bobo never wrote me back.

Let that be a lesson to ALL of you: if you're going to toy with me, I will decide when the conversation is to end, not you!!

[Mari]

...
And if folks are just looking to play games and mess around, they should give AIM, Yahoo, ICQ or any of the various other messenger programs and chatrooms a try, rather than using up our bandwidth (which results in outages to our service).

Aww.. come on. Sly dig, that one.
I can understand that you don't want people to use multiple usernames, but come on.. those 50 posts Schmoopy made, using up your bandwidth? If that is the real problem I know a poster or two you should look at.

Which, just in case, isn't what I mean. Everyone should be able to post as much as they want.

[Johnny Stew]

Aww.. come on. Sly dig, that one.
I can understand that you don't want people to use multiple usernames, but come on.. those 50 posts Schmoopy made, using up your bandwidth? If that is the real problem I know a poster or two you should look at.

Which, just in case, isn't what I mean. Everyone should be able to post as much as they want.Ok, 50 posts from Schmoopy... but if we allowed everyone to have multiple IDs, then how many posts are we talking about?

Yes, we should all be allowed to post as much as we want. And, last time I looked, we are allowed.
But we certainly generate enough posts as individuals that we don't need to be logging off and logging in under additional usernames, too. And to do what? Talk to ourselves? Respond to our own threads?

There's no good reason to do that, and it just eats up our bandwidth.

[Johnny Stew]

I only used Schmoopy's name one time in order to recreate my thread.
I am quite sure it was just the one time. Shouldn't the moderators be aware of this?We had no way of knowing how many times you used the "Schmoopy" ID, only that the IP addresses matched.

And if I haven't already, I apologize for the mistake.

[David]

I do not see how it was disturbing, and I asked a question and you replied with an answer. Why does that demand a response from me?Because I demand fealty from all my subjects. If you pledge your allegiance & troth to me, then all is forgiven. Remember, to turn your back on your liege before he has bid you do so is to risk his wrath.

[BombaySapphire3]

Could be. I knew I was being toyed with. But I got really disturbed when Bobo never wrote me back.

Let that be a lesson to ALL of you: if you're going to toy with me, I will decide when the conversation is to end, not you!!
That is quite tame compared to what a certain New Jersey basement dwelling former Ledgie sent me via pms.And being the mega creep he was/is he blocked me so I couldn't respond to them as he knew I would,

[wondergirl9847]

Buckingham......every time. :p

[BombaySapphire3]

I think Stevie prefers to win her battles with passive agressive recriminations .The battle I'd like to see is one between Lindsey and Christine .I'd put my money on an old Midlands pub crawler over a super sensitive metrosexual from the peninsula any day! :nod:

[amber]

I think Stevie prefers to win her battles with passive agressive recriminations .The battle I'd like to see is one between Lindsey and Christine .I'd put my money on an old Midlands pub crawler over a super sensitive metrosexual from the peninsula any day! :nod:
really? I think Lindsey is P.A. Maybe they both are. But I think Christine would kick everyone in that band's arse. :laugh: Of course, she's so cool she rarely has to do that. :cool:

[BombaySapphire3]

really? I think Lindsey is P.A. Maybe they both are. But I think Christine would kick everyone in that band's arse. :laugh: Of course, she's so cool she rarely has to do that. :cool:
Yeah I think they're both passive aggressive too.That is why things never are totally let go of on both their parts.

[amber]

Yeah I think they're both passive aggressive too.That is why things never are totally let go of on both their parts.
I think cause Lindsey's voice is higher and whinier he seems more P.A. to me. :laugh:

[Nixxxed]

I only used Schmoopy's name one time in order to recreate my thread. It was nice enough to let me use the name that one instance. Everybody's talking like I have been masquerading around as Schmoopy. Unless I had blacked out mentally but physically was still able to carry out the masquerading, I am quite sure it was just the one time. Shouldn't the moderators be aware of this?
Also, is David referring to the private message from several months ago? That wasn't recent, so I'm not sure how that is considered relevant to the conversation. Unless it is to simply back up the claims that I am insane and a threat to the board. Also, I am utterly confused about your claims. I do not see how it was disturbing, and I asked a question and you replied with an answer. Why does that demand a response from me?
I hope the cookies were good, at least. Did you make sure to get all the crumbs out from under your fingernails?