nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Closing your account. Why?

beks101

I've noticed this is a common thing.
Often among posters who have racked up thousands of posts over years and really 'established' themselves in certain forums. They have 'friends', engage in daily chat, make smart and funny posts.
Then out of nowhere: CLOSED ACCOUNT.

I don't get it. Do they just burn out, get sick of spending so much time on a message board and decide to try out the real world for a while? Or is it a privacy issue, do they feel they have 'revealed too much'?

I've been around here for quite a while. Sometimes I disappear for weeks because life gets busy, other times I post and browse and thank posts far too frequently than probably is normal....but I've never considered closing my account. I like having a boards identity that no-one in the real world knows about (I think...). I like expressing my opinions on stuff and sometimes having my mind changed. I like looking over posts that I wrote sometimes, in a sense they've sort of chronicled the adventures I've had over the last few years.

So what's up with it? Do they just all come back and re-reg? Or do they just disappear into the ether?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

What I don't understand, is why some users close their accounts and then start posting again using another one almost immediately, in the very same way they were before with the same: opinions, turns of phrase, posting styles, viewpoints etc etc etc. I mean, I get it if they are trying to circumvent a ban, makes sense I guess but why do it if you haven't been banned. To me, that doesn't make sense. It's like when my exes hold a beer mat or a drink up to cover their faces whenever I walk into a pub their in. Totally insufficient form of camouflage. Eh, I seeeeeee yoooou!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Zulu

Magaggie wrote: »

I've been around Boards years and years and have no problem saying it. "Hardline feminazis" (man-haters) is quite the claim - pretty inflammatory. Only asking what you mean by this.

I dunno, it seems to me you're looking for a row.

And if you're not, your friend is certainly spoiling for one.

Shakespeare's Sister

beks101 wrote: »

I'm obviously bat sh1t crazy, but closing my account would need to have a very very good and deeply considered reason for me

That doesn't indicate you're bat sh1t crazy at all, just your preference. It's perfectly sensible and logical. I'd imagine loads of people would feel the same as you.

People have privacy, identity reasons for closing their account though - it's not all just to close their account for the sake of it. There can be assumptions made on these threads. People don't have a clue what's going on in other people's lives/heads so they can't know why others close their accounts. Although I'm sure there are people who just close their account because the option is *there* and start again.

Shakespeare's Sister

Zulu wrote: »

I dunno, it seems to me you're looking for a row.

I'm not. Looking for clarification of your inflammatory post. Agreeing with each other isn't backslapping btw. People agree with each other all the time here.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Aren't they just reregs trying to circumvent permabans though?

I'm talking about when it's done for seemingly no reasons than just to do it.

Understandable if they're being harassed / stalked etc - the motive of doing it then, is obvious, but if they continue to post in the same way as they did, then the stalker will spot them immediately anyway and so begin their campaign of torment all over again.

I mean.. that's what I always do

I'm kidding.

Muise...

Magaggie wrote: »

I'm not. Looking for clarification of your inflammatory post. Agreeing with each other isn't backslapping btw. People agree with each other all the time here.

*agrees with a nod.

Look at us, starting rows by making Zulu post stuff. :pac:

Zulu

Magaggie wrote: »

I'm not. Looking for clarification of your inflammatory post.

Thats twice you've mentioned that now. If you have a problem with my post: report it, and let the mods deal with it.

Otherwise Chamomile tea, lavender candle and some oil of evening primrose?

wexie

Muise... wrote: »

*agrees with a nod.

Look at us, starting rows by making Zulu post stuff. :pac:

Damn you females always ganging up on us poor misunderstood and much maligned men. (I think I may start a new support group M4)

(sad face for lack of a crying smiley)

Muise...

wexie wrote: »

Damn you females always ganging up on us poor misunderstood and much maligned men. (I think I may start a new support group M4)

(sad face for lack of a crying smiley)

Well would you look at the time - lunch already and not a man in the house scalded!

Zulu

Muise... wrote: »

Well would you look at the time - lunch already and not a man in the house scalded!

..and all because I mentioned some posters from a few years ago. Siesh, shallow waters run deep.

My apologies for the offence and hurt that I have caused those reregged joined on Aug2013. Lol.

Shakespeare's Sister

Zulu, would you just answer the question instead of making yourself look... not very nice. As well as a hypocrite.
What did you mean by "hardcore feminazis"? This has a specific meaning - it means man-haters, people who push extremely crazy feminist agendas. This hasn't been the case on Boards from what I have seen over many years.

RDM_83 again

Ok about this squable can you not see that if users can get themselves banned from tLL they might actually be rather aggressive in their posting and its not just us men imagining things or trying to keep the patriarchy strong.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

wexie wrote: »

Damn you females always ganging up on us poor misunderstood and much maligned men. (I think I may start a new support group M4)

(sad face for lack of a crying smiley)

...

Nemeses

Hotfail.com wrote: »

It wouldn't take a genius to figure it out from my current username tbh :P

Gmale.net?

Shakespeare's Sister

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ok about this squable can you not see that if users can get themselves banned from tLL they might actually be rather aggressive in their posting

People have been so hardline radfem they have been banned from TLL? Could you PM me links?

and its not just us men imagining things

Some men think women simply defending themselves from the (sometimes awful) stuff that gets said about women here = hardline feminists who dislike men, which is hugely inaccurate to say the least. They are not the same thing. And then throwing out menopause/PMS digs - yeh that's really covering themselves in glory and not a bit childish.

or trying to keep the patriarchy strong.

Shakespeare's Sister

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

...

White knights exist for sure, but not EVERYTHING a guy says in defence of women is white-knighting y'know.

stefan idiot jones

No point me opening up a new account, my accent would give me away.

KahBoom

Why are people throwing in snide digs at Zulu, when they don't yet even know what he meant?

I don't think using the term 'feminazi' is either smart or tactful at all myself (it has multiple meanings, some reasonable, some inflammatory), but throwing snide digs is even more inflammatory - and is pretty obviously spoiling for an argument.

I don't defend what he said, but at least figure out what the fúck he meant, before laying into him - and a bad way of trying to figure out what someone meant, is by getting snidey and putting them on the defensive, where they might not answer...(turning what could be a simple question, into a multi-page-long pointless argument)

Shakespeare's Sister

KahBoom wrote: »

Why are people throwing in snide digs at Zulu, when they don't yet even know what he meant?

Have you not seen Zulu's snide digs?

And he still hasn't clarified what he meant (despite being asked) so the original comment itself just looks like a... snide dig.
I think he'll be ok - it's amusing the way you're making him out to be a poor put-upon little victim.

Zulu

Magaggie wrote: »

Some men think women simply defending themselves ... = hardline feminists who dislike men, which is hugely inaccurate to say the least.

Not me. But you are probably right, some men probably do. Then again some men believe a man built a boat and managed to get two of every animal aboard.

And then throwing out menopause/PMS digs - yeh that's really covering themselves in glory and not a bit childish.

I hope you don't mean me? Oh dear, have I offended you? Because if I have I'll apologise once again. Sorry.

Magaggie wrote: »

Zulu, would you just answer the question instead of making yourself look... not very nice. As well as a hypocrite.
What did you mean by "hardcore feminazis"?

How am I a hypocrite exactly?

Look I've no interest in a big argument with you. Life is short enough without annon hostility. The (rhetorical) question you should be really asking is: why have you identified with my original post? Most everyone else would either agree or disagree with it as an opinion and move on, but for some reason you've taken on this crusade to get the the bottom of it. Why? How has this become so personal for you?

Everlong1

umop.episdn wrote: »

I just like to think up slightly witty usernames & try them out.

So where did it all go wrong this time?

Czarcasm

Zulu wrote: »

Not me. But you are probably right, some men probably do. Then again some men believe a man built a boat and managed to get two of every animal aboard.

I hope you don't mean me? Oh dear, have I offended you? Because if I have I'll apologise once again. Sorry.

How am I a hypocrite exactly?

Look I've no interest in a big argument with you. Life is short enough without annon hostility. The (rhetorical) question you should be really asking is: why have you identified with my original post? Most everyone else would either agree or disagree with it as an opinion and move on, but for some reason you've taken on this crusade to get the the bottom of it. Why? How has this become so personal for you?

Well, that's another fun thread gone to shìt.

[Deleted User]

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well, that's another fun thread gone to shìt.

That's feminazis for you. Ruining everything, especially when they don't

Zulu

I'd love to see an experiment - how long it takes for a thread to go to ****, once the word "feminazi" is posted. It's incredible really the power of language; Orwell knew what he was talking about.

Shakespeare's Sister

Zulu wrote: »

I hope you don't mean me? Oh dear, have I offended you? Because if I have I'll apologise once again. Sorry.

The fake apology is bizarre. People usually post sarcastic apologies when the comment they made wasn't insulting. But you know the post I'm referring to was really unpleasant and unnecessary, that was the whole aim of it.

The (rhetorical) question you should be really asking is: why have you identified with my original post? Most everyone else would either agree or disagree with it as an opinion and move on, but for some reason you've taken on this crusade to get the the bottom of it. Why? How has this become so personal for you?

You posted that comment without anything to back it up whatsoever. And then when asked to elaborate you just wouldn't. I am only asking how you think there are hardline radfems who put down men on Boards when there haven't been.

KahBoom

Magaggie wrote: »

Have you not seen Zulu's snide digs?
And he still hasn't clarified what he meant (despite being asked) so the original comment itself just looks like a... snide dig.
I think he'll be ok - it's amusing the way you're making him out to be a poor put-upon little victim.

Oh so you're making assumptions about what I have said, and are using this to throwing little digs at me too now?

Maybe don't needlessly put posters on the defensive, by making unwarranted assumptions about what they have said.
I don't know what Zulu meant - if it was a slight against feminists in general, fair enough I agree with peoples criticisms of that - neither do you though, and I don't really blame him for not bothering answering the question, given the digs he's been getting.

That said, it wouldn't hurt at all for him to answer what he meant by 'feminazi's and make it clear now - to put this to rest.

Shakespeare's Sister

KahBoom wrote: »

Oh so you're making assumptions about what I have said, and are using this to throwing little digs at me too now?

I am saying your defence of him is misguided.

Maybe don't needlessly put posters on the defensive, by making unwarranted assumptions about what they have said.

I didn't initially, I and others asked for clarification - when it wasn't forthcoming, it really made the initial post look like... a dig.

For crying out loud, look at *his* digs at people.

GSF

beks101 wrote: »

Who's Mike65? Did he end up in rehab for boards addiction?

He is happily posting on Digital Spy now.

Penny Tration

Zulu wrote: »

I'd love to see an experiment - how long it takes for a thread to go to ****, once the word "feminazi" is posted. It's incredible really the power of language; Orwell knew what he was talking about.

I'm pretty sure it's your inflammatory comments about women that turned the thread to ****, not the word 'feminazi.' menopause remarks? Really? Bit juvenile, no?