User blog comment:NotAnEditor/Hate Mail/@comment-113335-20090829175609

All of the folks above, minus AG, have a great point, particularly Bugzy. In fact, because Bugzy responded, there isn't really a reason for me to waste my time here.

AG, we all know how you claim you have never broken the COC. In a way, you never have, by its written words. You see, and this also applies in the real world, you can easel your way around the doctrines and say things that would normally get a man in trouble. For example, you have created a shield of immunity due to your freedom speech sermons, and when someone tries to ban you, you cry Martyr.

"Oh, how dare he ban me, I've done nothing wrong! I am merely civilly disobeying the rules to make them better! Unblock me now!"

Then, for fear of choas, we have no choice but to unblock you, because by written COC, you have technically done nothing wrong.


 * ANALOGY:


 * Legal documents are to be followed to the letter. In all cases, breaking the contract can cost you a lot of hassle, money, and lawsuits. HOWEVER, contracts can be exploited via what is commonly known as a Loophole. Though most often in cartoons, loopholes are real and exist in actual bonding documents.


 * Here's my point. The COC strictly states what can and can not be done, in writing. As users, we agree to abide the COC unless Wikia doctrine (Terms of Use) override it. Now, if you read the doctrine and compare it to AG's antics, he has not broken anything written. However, he has broken unwritten clauses, such as "No Crisis Starting" and other manners of choas. Civilly disobeying isn't written in stone as illegal (though AG-style disobediance should be), but we all know that your methods of civil disobdeiance merely cause strife and in many cases, annoyance.


 * Now, by COC doctrine, you can't be banned for you have done nothing wrong. However, by moral "Duh!" policies, you should be banned simply for causing a ruckus when a ruckus is not needed. We didn't need nor want your Court House Cases, and all they did was cause seemingly endless strife until the wise and superbly PWNsome Bugzy finally saved us by suing the thing off the Internet.


 * You were abusing the Court House, but were technically not breaking a rule in the COC. You had successfully exploited a loophole, because you claim that people can only be blocked if they violate something written in the COC. What about all of the things that aren't written that are still wrong, like causing Crisis or making people upset or annoyed? What about antagonizing them or being a smart-mouth? All of those are wrong, but they can't render a Ban Hammer because they are not written in the COC.


 * For a cartoon example of AG's block-dodging, I shall point to an overexaggerated loophole as seen in the Tech-Foot episode of the I-Carly Show.
 * In the particular episode of the show, the protagonists had signed a bonding contract with the Tech-Foot company, "Deka", stating they would advertise their shoes online in a positive manner. However, after discovering the entire Deka corporation was scamming the masses by selling low quality products as opposed to what they promised, the protagonists exploited the literal writing of their contract.
 * Using phrases such as "cool!", "how wonderful", "convienient", "isn't that grand?", etc., they explained the flaws of the product. They shared things such as how when brought near a computer, the shoe induced blue screens of death due to a flawed electronic odometer, or how the electronic components set on fire when dropped from high places or slammed on a hard surface with pressure when wet. They concluded their "positive" commentary by saying the shoe, when aflame, provided an excellent oppurtunity for "Roasting Weenies!".
 * Now, it is indeed exaggerated and fictional, but legally, they did not break their contract. By using a happy tone and "positive" wording, they had successfully obeyed their legal bindings, even though the most idiotic of viewers could easily grasp that it was a bad product.
 * They had successfully exploited a Loophole. By sharing flaws in a "positive manner", they had obeyed the contract while getting even with the corporation with which they signed with.

AG, much like the I-Carly protagonists, is abusing the fact that they are only bound by what is WRITTEN on their respective contracts (the COC). Each "legal document" is read literally and not morally, as the laws of America (and possibly other places) dictate, and each have exploited this fact by literally not breaking the contract because what they are doing does not violate what is written in the document itself.


 * This is why AG says he is not breaking the COC, because he hasn't by legal standards. Isn't that wonderful?

Now, as for the hate mail... you claim that people calling you a Martian is hate mail?!

AG, to quote the Internet: YOU CAN NOT GRASP THE TRUE FORM OF THE MAIL.

Your so-called "hate mail" is NOTHING in comparison to what I recieved back when I led the CPW. Have you ever been called a sinister communist China dictator? How about a "total Jew" (though that was anti-semantic and not insulting)? Have you ever been referenced as a tyrannical evil, or a freak, etc.

How about a "cowardly Christian" or a "total failure"? Has a USA-hating conspiracy theorist ever called you an "Ameri- " or a " patriot"? What about a "mindless sheep" or a "lost generation"?

I was also caleld a "zealot" once, and we can't forget was ZW called me (a -wad).


 * AG, I've recieved a LOT of nasty insults, both here and abroad. You're hate mail is merely dislike parcels in comparison to what I get. So, until you recieve what I have recieved, I would reccomend silencing yourself, shaping up, being nice, and STOP WEASLING YOUR WAY AROUND THE COC!

Of course, I didn't need to write this book. Bugzy already responded.

-- † कछुए मशरूम! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) DON'T YOU DARE QUIT BECAUSE OF WHAT I JUST TYPED!!!!!!!! † 17:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)