QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 3:00pm)
Oh, ok. In that case, I'm just curious about the justification for claiming it's a pro-pedo account which is, you might understand, kinda a big deal.
Look, I'm not the brightest guy when it comes to humor, and I don't think it was particularly funny, but how the hell could anyone read the statement and assume that he was serious? His "majordomo"? Cannot read periodicals "before 1960"? Viridae used that to block the account for proxying edits? Seriously? And you, Apathetic, still doubt that it was a joke ("now claimed")?
He might have been serious about the child porn conviction (though obviously the "majordormo" statement was a humorous exaggeration).
But if there was no incident with the police, the "joke" made no sense. As for him claiming it was a joke, sure the "I'm banned from reading periodials etc etc" crap was - but that doesn't mean his "incident" didn't really happen, does it?
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Wed 24th February 2010, 3:04pm)
QUOTE(One @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:00pm)
Oh, ok. In that case, I'm just curious about the justification for claiming it's a pro-pedo account which is, you might understand, kinda a big deal.
Look, I'm not the brightest guy when it comes to humor, and I don't think it was particularly funny, but how the hell could anyone read the statement and assume that he was serious? His "majordomo"? Cannot read periodicals "before 1960"? Viridae used that to block the account for proxying edits? Seriously? And you, Apathetic, still doubt that it was a joke ("now claimed")?
Yes, I agree that is an exceptional claim that does need to be backed up with proof.
Yes, it's probably a joke and the account is not compromised, but it's an exceeding bad joke and in poor taste given the subject area they focus on.
Perhaps he would be better received on a website designed for such tomfoolery.
Does anyone know what the joke was referring to? I still haven't heard that.