|
|
 |
|
Getting Support : The Trailer Park
|
About The Trailer Park:
This section is for comments that get a little carried
away. When comments become flames, they are transferred
to this area. If you wish to continue the threads posted
here, feel free, but the content will stay in the Trailer
Park.
(More on the Trailer Park)
|
New section and new policy | from Jules - February 4, 2003
accessed 3787 times This Article is not in the Trailer Park. Go To Article |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from charity
February 16, 2003 - 08:40
awww jules...dont take me off of silence restriction?? there are still so many lessons the lord is trying to teach me. [charity bends over jules knee waiting for what paddy gave the drum]
thank you for this correction jules and being such a yielded vessel...[sings] and now i know my daddy loves me cause he showed me the way...and even though my bottom hurts......
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from charity beats the system ;-)
February 10, 2003 - 05:34
woooooohooooooo!!! PTL!!
sorry peeps. no charity GNz at the moment. all in "his timing."
just wanted to let you all know that your in my prayers. i have faith that he will continue to work in each and everyone of your lives.
tonz of love and big big fat hugz...xxxxxooooo
(reply to this comment) |  From Jules
Monday, February 10, 2003, 23:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Umm, I thought you were much too busy to be coming on here anymore?
I've decided to limit the initial trailer park restriction to one week. I figure that will give people enough time to take the hint (PJ is right, I'm not much for subtlety) without being too onerous. So if you just sit tight, you can save yourself all those hours of trying to "beat the system". (reply to this comment) |
| | from maria
February 7, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | From cz
Saturday, February 08, 2003, 00:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
omg, i dont know charity, but i do think she has guts very few have!
Anyhow, this has all come in good timing, i gotta pull out of this world anyways.I actually have moved on-and out, and want nothing more to do with all these evil memories!.. tho it is alittle drastic to ban me from the chat rm.! I should have expected things to go this way! A few slips of the tounge and i'm out har! well,good luck everyone (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | from xhrisl
February 7, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | from Jules
February 6, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | from Stella
February 6, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | from Charity
February 6, 2003 - 12:29
hmmm...the devil is really fighting here but PTL he always pulls through!! harhar :-)
first off, id like to say that if your gonna post crap about me and spread false roomers...you could have at least had the decency to give me fair access to this part of the site (as in this article) so that i could defend myself. but obviously...you couldnt take the come-backs in front of all!! hmmm...now what does that say about you?? and whose the low one now?? this pious self-righteous spree your on doesnt make you any better then anyone else!!
secondly jules, you really should clarify on the home page or somewhere that this isnt a free thinking site and let your so called "flock" know what your "standard" is. hmmm...i thought i had left that bull shit sensorship crap back in the cult. its quite depressing for me as well...to see one of my own peers with this kind of hypocritical and pretentious attitude. it makes me wonder if you were one of those self righteous backstabbers in the family that i have been talking about all along. hmmm...maybe if you tuned into the lord alittle more he would have shown you a better way to go about this. PTL...just a check jules.
is this site really for exSGAs who have left the family or is it for your own glory?? "the shit has hit the fan!!" and you obviously care more about what the world thinks. personally, i wouldnt be to proud of this flock you apparently have...your brainwashed fanz/groupies have to continue to be led by someone even out of the group.
i would make this part of the site the most popular of all, but i dont have time for this narrow minded trash. unlike you--i am moving on and out of here for good! hmmm...well...now now dont cry im sure ill find the time to post something from time to time:) well PTL...stay in tune jules...the lord hath need of thee...
(reply to this comment) | | | | | | | from John
February 6, 2003 - 10:02
This is a great article! read it before jules erases it.
February 6, 2003 - 8:57:00 AM from CZ
hmm, thats pretty low jules!
maybe Charity said joe and jn. are gay, etc. The difference is she doesn't discriminate gays, at least i dont!--or get into these petty adolescent rating posts "whos prettier, more hunky, blah."
What about that 4 garb? Auty, the whole slew of gitty girls whoever you are? Pretty partial to what you think is trash and what isn't!
You'r bieng pretty self-righteous to the extreem of labeling someone trailer trash!
Great for you with your selective success stories, how you or those lofty enough went from nothing to something.
Everyone is taking the best stab at it, and somehow you think your level of intelligence is high enough to judge character, level of conversation &/or success?
I bet you love the way ppl. are kissing your ass here! They leave one cult, and suck up to another-yours!
Many are just the same now as they were in the cult.(Backstabbing, 2-faced, afraid to defy someone that might be a friend of someone else.) Its all related! My guess is that so is this site, prob. a bunch of inbreds running a censorship. Enjoy!
and no, many ppl. know I haven't been in any love home but mine! ha
(I'm in HK, but you girls could change your IP number if your desperate to get on the site)
Good for you Zola and Becky whoever you are!(Maybe you could have the guts to say who you really are in spite of the fact that this new cult might not agree!) btw, I don't agree that pompous john is the most borring!
(reply to this comment) | from cz
February 6, 2003 - 08:57
hmm, thats pretty low jules!
maybe Charity said joe and jn. are gay, etc. The difference is she doesn't discriminate gays, at least i dont!--or get into these petty adolescent rating posts "whos prettier, more hunky, blah."
What about that 4 garb? Auty, the whole slew of gitty girls whoever you are? Pretty partial to what you think is trash and what isn't!
You'r bieng pretty self-righteous to the extreem of labeling someone trailer trash!
Great for you with your selective success stories, how you or those lofty enough went from nothing to something.
Everyone is taking the best stab at it, and somehow you think your level of intelligence is high enough to judge character, level of conversation &/or success?
I bet you love the way ppl. are kissing your ass here! They leave one cult, and suck up to another-yours!
Many are just the same now as they were in the cult.(Backstabbing, 2-faced, afraid to defy someone that might be a friend of someone else.) Its all related! My guess is that so is this site, prob. a bunch of inbreds running a censorship. Enjoy!
and no, many ppl. know I haven't been in any love home but mine! ha
(I'm in HK, but you girls could change your IP number if your desperate to get on the site)
Good for you Zola and Becky whoever you are!(Maybe you could have the guts to say who you really are in spite of the fact that this new cult might not agree!) btw, I don't agree that pompous john is the most borring!
(reply to this comment) | | | | From cz
Thursday, February 06, 2003, 10:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
to any of you ...
this would be the easyest way if your not exactly computer literate.
1.go to google.com
2.then go to anonymize
3.you should see a little section in where you type your intended site..
this will only temporarily alow you to post. In order to change it permanently, without tracking, etc. you would have to change your url.
I will give you further instructions if needed. ha, zola, write me..
(reply to this comment) |
| | From cz
Thursday, February 06, 2003, 10:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
to any of you ...
this would be the easyest way if your not exactly computer literate.
1.go to google.com
2.then go to anonymize
3.you should see a little section in where you type your intended site..
this will only temporarily alow you to post. In order to change it permanently, without tracking, etc. you would have to change your url.
I will give you further instructions if needed. ha, zola, write me..
(reply to this comment) |
| | from tigress
February 6, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | from exotik tom-boy
February 6, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | from Prisma
February 5, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | from Don't shut it down!
February 5, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | from Zola
February 5, 2003 - 05:18
In the Privacy Policy (which by the way is legally binding) on this website it specifically states that, "Site editors (which I presume to be you - Jules, and a few others)...cannot e-mail you directly" excuse me but I recieved two e-mails from you Jules AND thepersoniamnow requesting that maybe i should think about posting that article in the first place! What kind of "Freedom of Speech" is that? Why are we being monicodled into posting only what you see to be "appropriate"?
(reply to this comment) | | | | from Pharmaboy..
February 5, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Jules
Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 23:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
There is also no prerequisite for being a participant here apart from having parents who joined the Family.
What sort of quality control do you suggest? Are you trying to censor people? Suggest that they are not "good enough" to be an editor here? Create your own cult? (Hey this is fun) :p
I guess if you are welcome the standards must be low.
(Ok sorry, I am putting my comment in the trailer park, I just couldn't resist.) (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Jules
Wednesday, February 12, 2003, 09:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Um, sure Monk, "they" are after you again. I was talking about you being welcome as an editor, and I was KIDDING. (No one seems to appreciate my humour but me :'( )
I posted your article since you were working yourself up so much about it, and the question marks were in there originally. Your apostrophes and quotation marks came up as question marks. (I have no idea why that sometimes happens, but it does. Do a search for I?m or something like that.)
I cleaned it up in word and reposted it but it didn't fix it and I was tired so I went to bed.
But sure dude, it's all about you. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Monk
Wednesday, February 12, 2003, 18:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Look Jules, if you're trying to insinuate I'm paranoid ("it's all about you"), why don't you just come out & say it (or maybe this is just another one of your terrific passive aggressive humour moments we've all grown to love).
No, Jules, I don't think it's "all about me", but let me spell out for you: I’ve posted from the same computer before & never had the “?” problem. My article was posted well after articles submitted up to two days after mine.
If for some reason there was this mystery microsoft problem (particular to my article I might add) transposing all punctuation marks with “?”, as an editor, what exactly IS YOUR ROLE? (Besides banishing perfectly valid objections to the “Trailer Park”.) It seems more & more clear the criteria for having a remark sent to the “Trailer Park” is showing any dissent for either your opinions, or the inefficiencies of either you or your cronies.
Although I can’t prove that it was you and not Sunny who decided to post my article with hundreds of “?” throughout it, tell me Jules, if she’s the editor of that section why didn’t she post it herself? Is she too busy singing out her ass or busy like the rest of you “editors” trying to think up new reasons to banish people to the “Trailer Park” for such new crimes as “Sunny dissent”. (You’ve admitted to being a “Sunny Fan”, but I didn’t think your obsession would extend to taking the wrap for her & secluding perfectly valid comments on her editorial capabilities to the “Trailer Park”, how sincerely pathetic!)
So, to you it’s ok for my article to be posted with hundreds of “?”, days after everyone else’s, but it’s not ok for me to let you know what a crap job you did & that it pissed me off. – If you think I do a good enough job making myself look stupid, then why did you try so hard to give me a helping hand? – You Suck Jules, & not in a way worth two bob!!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From still small voice
Thursday, February 13, 2003, 10:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Monk,
Did you think about your font settings? Are you sure you weren't typing in some non-standard font that maybe expresses punctuation in some odd hexadecimal values that get translated as question marks when converted to plain text?
Did you use a word processing program to write your article? Which one? What format did you first save your work in? (.doc, .txt, .rtf, .wps...) This kind of thing resulting from a technical glitch is a lot more plausible than someone going through your article and replacing punctuation with question marks, especially since they were too busy to post your article on time in the first place.
Computers are not always the most cooperative things around.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Monk
Wednesday, February 12, 2003, 19:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
No, it’s not worth the time or the energy!! – Which is why you should have taken my 6th sense premonition (something terribly trans-gender about that comment I know) that something was awry with the posting of that article more seriously!
Anyways, I think you would know the differences between posting an article and posting a comment. If the procedure was the same then why the editorial “middleman”? I won’t discuss this further, I’ve already said what I think, & I maintain my dissent of you and your editorial fraternity playing silly-buggers at my (or anyone else’s) expense.
I’m content to treat your English half with a 3-1 triumph in the soccer. – Cheers!!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Thursday, February 13, 2003, 10:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dissent noted.
Here's a nice quote from Douglas Adams to pick you up (you know, every time I read your posts I think of this) :)
"Every country is like a particular type of person. America is like a belligerent adolescent boy, Canada is like an intelligent thirty-five-year-old woman. Australia is like Jack Nicholson. It comes right up to you and laughs very hard in your face in a highly threatening and engaging manner.
In fact it's not so much a country as such, more sort of a thin crust of semi-demented civilisation caked around the edge of a vast, raw wilderness, full of heat and dust and hopping things.
Tell most Australians that you like their country and they will give a dry laugh and say, "Well, it's the last place left now, isn't it?" which is the sort of worrying thing that Australians say. You don't quite know what they mean but it worries you in case they're right." (reply to this comment) |
| | From Monk
Thursday, February 13, 2003, 22:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
Playfully put, endearing I’m sure.
Truly though a segmented, picaresque analogy by Douglas Adams, which seems to indicate frustration of the writer attempting to relate to the dry sense of Australian humour yet at the same time not taking exception to it. Without taking offence, it is interesting that America & Canada are described as types of people whereas Australia (notice only ex-British colonies are being compared not the UK) is compared to a single person, in particular a Hollywood personality. He could have picked from genuine Aussies like Mel Gibson, Sam Neil, Russel Crowe, Simon Baker, Hugh Jackman, Geoffrey Rush or at least Croco-Dundee. – Why would an American better represent an Australian mentality?
Arguments aside, it is IMO, a clever analogy if you consider the overall mentality of a young nation as depicted by its historical politics. If you think of the overall mentality of the US, IMO, it’s far more solely success driven: the one on top wins regardless of how you get there, & portrays a fanatical desire to show supremacy of “superior principals” easily shown by their eagerness to go to war. Canada was never out to prove a point to the British, & don’t have the same historical perspective to military conflict. Australia, on the other hand, genuine-article cast-offs, a sort of disenfranchised element of society, what do they prove? Present day reality speaking for itself mocks those who chose to discard these elements of society who blatantly shoved a mirror in the face of corrupt, hierarchal, suppressive government. I believe, without necessarily realising it, Australians are well inclined to understand concepts of cause and effect determining behaviour, and there is a kind of social ethic as well, to “back the underdog” which I’m inclined to believe stems primarily from historical politics. It’s sort of a mentality of “you may be on top, & I see that, but that doesn’t make you right”.
In saying that, it’s not as if principles of ethics are thrown to the wind, but just that stigma towards dissent is not as pronounced as it is by certain countries & their citizens who seem intent on dictating moral & ethical principals as if they have some superior insights unavailable to the rest of the world. However, I believe that once the reason for mentalities of different countries are understood by the people themselves the peculiarities of the mentalities will cease to be so pronounced. – Just my pet theory.
I did enjoy the quote though, so thanks anyways. In fact it was so good, & you refer to Douglas Adams so much my suggestion is you may want to commission Sunny James to make a “Douglas Adams Quote” tape, a sort of a dis-affirmative “Feed My Lambs” by Mama compilation. - Let us know how it goes.
Now please Jules, leave me alone to wallow in my disenfranchised, dissenter mentality.
Meanwhile, Happy Valentines! : www.c-a-p-s.co.uk/images/dancer.swf (Don’t complain, it’s from the UK after all!)
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from
February 5, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | from Alf
February 4, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | | | | | from WickedWhisper
February 4, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | | | | | From Zola
Wednesday, February 05, 2003, 05:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't believe this! Nothing like being shepherded all over again huh Jules?!! For fucks sake!! Never been to Taiwan in my life!! What is so wrong about people voicing their opinions?? Maybe you should have a section for all the COWARDS on this site who don't have the guts to speak their piece. And another section for the BORING FUCKS like Pompous John and the likes of him who have nothing better to do than attempt to tear other people's comments apart! (and I would be VERY SURPRISED if he managed to keep his pathetic attempts at being clever out of this thread.) I am sorry but I don't think that the "Sunny James" article was so evil it has to be exiled from this so called tell-it-how-it-is site!! Sunny must have not have taken it very personally because she barely said anything about it! Jeez! I was merely making an observation and asking WHY? Maybe the separate section should be for the people who have REALLY "just moved" and are still clinging on to whatever shreds of "fame", or even the "claims to fame" (such as: 'I met Sunny once') that they may have had in the Family. I know and have lived with a few of you "shakers and movers", and you know what? You are still the selfrighteous, holier-than-thou, lets-kiss-the-shepherd's asses backstabbers you always were so FUCK THE LOT OF YOU! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from bintoro-lost
February 4, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from butterhead
February 4, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | from Jules
February 4, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | from Sunny is very happy indeed!
February 4, 2003 - This comment is in the main site |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]