I would respectfully like to volunteer to help... or recommend the Monk (probably a better idea).
Things always seem to be going along swimmingly on this site when some 'tard spoils 71 for us all.

I enthusiastically endorse Schwill's ideas, and I think Groundskeeper Willie's suggestion of himself and/or The Monk to get some admin powers is excellent.

I happened on this board during a three week period when there was no trolling- no viciousness. Oldfags teased me but they helped me find and learn all manner of Cracky related things. Why couldn't it be like that all the time?

I'm just talking about vicious insane trolling. It does tend to interrupt discussions about Cracky-related topics, including books, art, and such that I find very interesting. I learned about the Doubtful Penguin because of .71, worth it for that alone.

Please MA listen to Schwill.

Best regards, enjoy your Cracky everyone.

-Pinky Newfag

I do think it's an interesting idea, but I think it remains to be seen if it is a good idea...

Giving it would be a dangerous one though, as I most probably would delegate it to the monkey far too often. That would no doubt be counter productive as I am convinced he couldnt resist toying with the trolls first, you know how he is...

I agree with this. Not plain brutal censorship, but shit which is designed to interrupt with the functioning of the forum should be disabled. This place has been lately on the brink of becoming yet another CH. Sorry if this sounds offensive for any of you still going to CH, but I stopped going there more than half a year ago, its just too unfocused to keep my interest at all.

>>4 I'd just like to suggest that it's the Monkey who might be best suited for such a role precisely because he is playful.

He doesn't hate the people who post the gratuitously vicious stuff in .71, but he certainly can recognize it.

I'm pro-Monkey in any case.

TBH, I thought the monkey WAS the MA. I now say: The Monk or the monkey should be guest admin. If neither choose to, then I volunteer as last choice. But someone should do it. We all may have differing viewpoints as to what SHOULD be on 71, but we all know instinctively what SHOULDN'T be here (inb4 'YOU, you Scottish git').

wat wat in the wat!?!

err, I am honored you guise think I am the hominid for the situation but you realize leavin the keys of the house to a monkey might sound inerahn... inehrent... just play bananas, right?

A bit off-topic but the Monkey will in fact be co-starring in the new Batman film.

The site is fine as it is. Any troll posts just drop down to the other pages quite quickly.

In any event, one of the Monks taking the reins of the site would be a disaster, they seem to get pissed off quite easily.

I know this really isn't contributing to the topic of discussion but this song reminded me of .71

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O29cFmLGTk

Anyway I honestly don't know if we need stronger moderation, Cracky content seems to be thriving right now and I think it'll always thrive despite trolls as long as we MAKE it thrive. Maybe instead of complaining about trolls we should all make a conscious effort to post our thoughts/feelings about Cracky as often as possible, to create a stream of relevance that will always drown out the crapflooding.

At some point you must weigh the harm an action might have against the good it will do. In this case I think it is clear the benefits light moderation would have are worth the risk. If it doesn't work out MA can always remove the rights, not risking it dooms us to this inexorable path.

i don't think there's any shortage of suitable people for the role, but i'm not sure if it would be for the best. personally i prefer the board as unfiltered as possible, occasional shitposts can sink quickly and be ignored, and i feel only rarely would action need to be taken if it got out of hand.

verification related, 71 telling us who should become a mod

nah i lie

>>11
Getting rid of the random unrelated girl posters would not be a disaster.

Probably the reason why so many call for the monks to do it is that crappy pics like yours arent pissing just the monks off, and are actually part of the CH like pollution they want to adress now...

So, you're right that giving too much power to religious fanatics would probably be a bad idea but you are wrong when you say .71 is just fine. What you're really saying is that you know you'd be first against the wall.

h

I don't think it's necessary to have another MOD. Trolls come, trolls go, we stay. That's the way it is.

>>17
I would agree if, for instance, there was a mod who would actually delete chansluts grade crap like >>16.

In any case, your pic maybe somewhat more "related" because of the wings, but still, keep posting your crap and you will manage to convince me we do need another, much more active mod...

Someone can't live without being controlled, can they?

>>19
By all means, elaborate.

Ironically, or perhaps inevitably, this thread is already polluted by a cadre of twisted, bitter oldfags who have one interest in this board and one only: to antagonize other oldfags, from needling them on a regular, sometimes daily basis to trying to wind them up into a frenzy of impotent anger.

Oldfags know who other oldfags are.

Newfags hate the oldfags who exist here only to antagonize the other oldfags.

I have a suggestion: why don't you FAGS man up and sort this out once and for all, so that newfags can enjoy an actual Cracky board with good cheer and Cracky content?

This isn't about "free speech principles" it's about a very tiny group of TOTAL ASSHOLES who hate another very tiny group of oldfags who still want to carry the Cracky flame.

I'm all for having the rogue oldfags killed, actually. Too bad Jeff is on the dark side or we could hire him to do it.

Maybe the problem is with the format itself. This anonymous message board thing can only do so much. There's no way of actively tagging a discussion or leaving contact info. Because the owner chooses to remain silent the site suffers in quality. There are 2 other sites (lurkmore and CH) and the esoteric spanish one but Lurkmore attracts people looking for nudes (Any kind from anyone) and CH is all drama/trolls. I suggest creating a site on something like Webs.com format. The sites are set up so you can join as a member, post picture albums, links have a forum and lots of other widgets/pages. I'm just thinking if there was more features on ANY of the current sites that'd improve things. But idk, it's just an idea.

>>21
r you serious? o_O

>>21
Perhaps you know something I dont know. Yes, I do sometimes sense some hostility from someone with considerable knowledge of Crackylore, but as far as knowing who that chaos addict is, my oldfag guess is no better than anyone's...

>>18>>11

>Pic unrelated with Cracky
>Post requires deletion

Oh.

>>25
Maybe >>11 doesnt require deletion, but it is a willfull irritant, just like your post, no doubt.

But I would argue that .71 would be better if a mod deleted >>16 which was clearly what >>21 was referring to as "antagonizing"...

You've heard of "antagonizing" before, right?

Actually I wasn't thinking of an oldfag when I started this thread. I was thinking of a certain person in particular. They are stable, forgiving, and open minded. I think they would make an ideal moderator.

Gary if you are interested in my suggestion my new SN: is Totensoldat

vericode: yay
Because cracky makes me cheer

NO.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

NO FUCKING WAY.

>>28 I haven't seen one dissenting voice from the idea of Gary actually moderating this site more stringently, except from the exact people whose only fun is wrecking everyone else's fun.

OP wasn't suggesting we make .71 a humorless Nazi Germany.

Again- it is not at all difficult to recognize a post meant solely to antagonize Cracky lovers.

Anyone that MA chose would be good, and if it didn't work out, MA could switch them up or just go back.

There is nothing to lose by trying Schwill's idea- because any new regime would be totally reversible by the actual site owner.

The Monk, the Monkey, the Crazy but Warmhearted Scotsman, the mysterious other people mentioned- any of them would make a fine moderator in my view.

Especially the Monk. In case anyone hasn't noticed, the Monk is not a trigger happy troll hater. Every one of his posts is empathetic even when he's addressing insane vicious people.

This board has been unmoderated without exception since the beginning of time.

That's not about to change.

>>30 Are you borderline retarded, or just a garden variety casual liar? Not two weeks ago MA but the muzzle on the "Rose Trap Cam Whore" lunatic. So yes this board is moderated. Therefore, not "unmoderated," if that helps you any.

>>29
Thank you for the vote of confidence but I assure you, sometime my "empathy" backfires and turns me into an equally insane vicious troll hater, we all got our demons, you know...

Anyways, but I'm still unconvinced either way, but the debate is interesting. I'd like the statu quo camp to put a little more meat on their argument. I also like the idea of somebody without too much baggage getting the job...

In any case, other than the discussion here, I think it should best be handled privately. Judging by this thread, announcing there's a new mod on the job will get boundary explorations posts to try and make the new admin react, as well as outright challenges to this new authority. Making it public would only cause more problems than it would solve I'm afraid, at least at the very beginning...

But I like that we're talking about it, and I also like this sense I get that the trolls are circling the wagons, for a change.

Maybe this time we get to "feel the serpents of hate and monotony relinquish constriction around" our "endangered subculture"...

>>31

I don't usually write tl;dr posts but this is just too good to pass on. By 'unmoderated', I suggest that the board lacks a secret hierarchy that imbeciles such as yourself would seek to climb, for reaching the inner cabal and wielding unbridled power to "OH DEAR.. DELETE THAT MEAN MERO POST WAAAHH" is the only way to arrogate power and purpose in your shitty lives.

Who's the "'Rose Trap Cam Whore' lunatic"? Are you telling me that you read every post on this board, and not only that you know who's posting what when and why? You'd have to be a complete shut in pizza munching full retard derpface diddle toucher to even notice such a subtle trend - even moreso to miss the nuance in my language quietly scoffing the idea that a backwater board receiving 3 posts a day requires any moderation beyond mysterious admin's gentle touch.

There are 3 posters on this board, in order of wordyposts (inversely proportional to handsomeness and cock size):

a) Schwill, and his many iterations and sockpuppets. Also responsible for a great number of 'Alex' posts as he seeks to bemuse himself now the men in white coats have finished electrocuting his brain.. he needs other forms of stimulation. A cute little man who needs to vacate his basement and get a charity fuck from camel/loli/cracky or DEAR GOD ANYONE PLEASE JUST DO IT FOR THE KITTENS.

b) The 'real' Alex, who is actually a 14 year old Nigerian with 692 AIM accounts setting up an intricate and rather ingenious scam- pay one Cracky tariff of $999 (hat-tip: cain) to receive your shipment of Cracky. (You can spot him by use of disgustingly awful Nigerian prose, his incurable impulse to over-articulate and use arcane language nobody fucking remembers except for that missionary who often stops by the village for a quick cup of tea and sodomy)

c) Me - Your beloved Merokins, who only posts in his underwear after stumbling in from the balcony at 3am stinking of gin, cigarettes and your mothers pussy, always ready to post sharp, witty adjective-crammed responses to matters of pressing importance such as "I WONDER WHAT CRACKY'S FARTS SMELL LIKE" and "DEAR OH DEAR, HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT ALEX'S COCK HAS SHRIVELLED UP INTO HIS CHEST, OR IS IT SHOVED UP HIS OWN ASS I CAN'T TELL BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE SHIT".

The board is fine. It's like 300 years old and we've never had a problem, now shut the fuck up.

>>16

the fuck is this??

>>31
You can safely ignore Mero, everybody does...

>>33
you've convinced me we should do this, and I now realize just how >>21 was right on the money

>>33
>>33
>>33

for once I agree with mero. if it isnt broken dont fix it. and its been much more broken before.

Just go to the Angeles site if you want a board completely free of "antagonizing posts" (I now believe this means any post not containing a minimum 10 word praise to Cracky).

you're not fooling anybody

whether this happens or not, your reaction is telling

My impression is that if someone would get admin rights, he might figure who is posting under what set of socks.

And I think someone doesnt like the prospect...

>>38

Nobody will ever post on your dumb site.

break out the yellows and batten down the hatches

we're in for rough weather

>>41

It's not my site. I don't even visit that place.

>>42
My god we have to warn someone. The conditions are all right, this will be a perfect shitstorm.

It's nice to see who is on what side of the fence, and how graceful they are about it.

I'm still on the fence, but I do notice a disproportionate reaction behind the calls for statu quo, disproportionate in relation to the claims justifying it, claims like "we've never had a problem", which is more than just a little overstatement...

No, there is panic in the air, and I wonder why...

great thread

"never been a problem" well that's being tested at this moment isn't it?

It's an in your face "I dare you to do something about me."

I hope MA takes this as a sign Schwill has a good idea.

Just don't post in the shit-threads.

It would be good if MA brought the sage function back, though.

>>48 Yes, sage would be better than nothing. Best of all would be trying out Schwill's idea.

It needn't be draconian- ban an asshole for a week, see what happens, and like I said before any such changes would be totally reversible.

It's all up to the MA. I hope he at least read this thread eh?

Back to the fore

Shameless self bump

>>51 Schwill if that's you, is there any way you have private contact with MA? I should have thought the reaction to your OP in this thread proved your point rather dramatically. I don't really feel like visiting .71 when there's an excellent chance I'll be one click away from viewing a steaming pile of shit, or some child pornography.

>>52
I lost his screen name a long time ago, and he only used it a few times that I can remember. Gary get ahold of me man. My AIM is totensoldat.

Hey person that tried to get ahold of me last night, sorry I didn't answer. It was two minutes after midnight and I hadn't slept the night before. You can try again but remember I am on Pacific Standard Time (GMT-8)

Just back from CH, of all the options, namefagging is the less rebarbative option to me, but I just wanted to say, hang in there mang, I worry about you.

PS: Wasnt me who tried, but I do hope MA gets in touch with you...

Bump for Cracky social issues of importance.

>>55
Is "the Monk" the guy, then, who can't get it through his head that 99 out of 100 acknowledged authorities on film and theater habitually refer to Robert De Niro as a "Method actor" and continues to delude himself that reiterating over and over an opinion held by almost no one in the world besides himself is one and ths same thing with enlightening people about matters of undisputed fact?

As I said on CH, he seems like a well-meaning guy, and not entirely lacking in a certain intelligence.

But if he REALLY can't get it through his head that one cranky "pet theory" held by him and a buddy or two does not a universally acknowledged and blindingly obvious verity make, I would seriously urge him to explore the Trappist option.

>>57
I will not discuss this here, specially with somebody who cant help but adopt a condescending tone but really, it's a cheap shot bordering on malevolence to bring this to .71.

Shame on you.

>>58
Fine.

But please not the typcal ".71" logic applied here.

Post no 1: "Just back from CH....You know, that place that is regularly lambasted on here as an AIDS- and CP-ridden, degenerate, worthless, disgusting shithole..."

Post no. 2: "Oh, so are you the guy who's been tl;dr'ing about his pet area of expertise on there for the past week?"

Post no. 3: "I forbid you to introduce the topic of CH on this board. This is a temple, a holy temple etc. etc."

Post no. 4: "Um...excuse me...but didn't you just....?"

Posts 5 to 105 and have not ensued yet, but I think we can all anticipate their essential gist: "Fuck off pedo wankstain die fucker cunt bastard you are a fucking pedo queer etc etc"

>>60
Ah! Wonder of wonders! Even upon one such as I, yea even upon an unbeliever, does the Sky Queen deign to endow the gift of prophecy!

Can this forebode Her long-predicted Return?

Are we to see once again, in our lifetime, the Sacred Era of her regular appearances on Stickam, on MyFreeCams?

Are the poolsides of Roseville CA.....oh hold on, shome mistake here shurely...

>>61

Should have included an: 'All of the above' option to your shitpost (that you have chased some anon from CH to 71 to 'prove a point' with this self-pitying retard crap).
NOW FOYCPW

>>59
No, go to CH for your pound of flesh you troll.

What I meant in >>55 is that Swill was alone in tinychat and though I didnt want to join tinychat I wanted to tell him something, which I did here.

It is none of your business, and has nothing to do with you.

I dont forbid you to bring this here, I refuse to discuss it here. And probably anything else anywhere, now...

>>63
Yes, I'm sorry. My bad on this one.

As you may know, Dolly and Camel turned up in the Tinychat as well, and the utter frantic shamelessness with which both were offering themselves to me as my sexual playthings must have gone to my head and tipped me into the sort of delusions of special personal importance that I have sometimes deplored in others, having always been so entirely free of them myself.

Blame Camel and Dolores, though, really!

One of them was performing some sort of mime with flash-cards right there on cam which was clearly meant for my eyes only, as I was the only person in the room old enough to remember Dylan's video for "Subterranean Homesick Blues" - as well, of course, as the only one with the hermeneutic skills necessary to translate the pop allusion into: "Come back to me, Daddy, I long for your conveniently small-enough-to-be-barely-noticeable member in the tunnels that weave through my supple young body like the Mont-Blanc Tunnel through the peaks of the Aostan Alps", while the other one was furiously PM'ing me that her sex with the large and muscular Rottweiler she's been working on developing a meaningful and mutually empowering relationship with since leaving her last boyfriend is but a hollow sham if my eyes are to be felt staring hungrily out of the darkness at them as they make the beast with two backs.

>>64

Back to the fore

There is not a shred of evidence that MA has read even a single word of this thread.

>>68
So as long as we keep it up top maybe he will see it.

I'm sure he has seen it. I hope he's seen the recent cavalcade of porn as well.

vericod: cain

Ever since Schwill started this thread, followed by suggestions that I be an eventual candidate, a less than subbtle anti-clerical crusade has been raging in .71.

I want to reiterate that I never wanted either the job or the attention.

In fact, if not for this thread, the oldfag(s) now pushing that crusade had more or less forgotten about me, even though I never left.

I am not plastering pages after pages of spam, I am praying, and sometimes, "whitewashing" page 0 to clear the in-you-face steaming piles of shits, random bald beavers and Boxxy shoops. I am not alone in doing so.

Should I also bump what little conversation we have, even when the thread dies off? I try to drag the current ones along back on top of the crap, but really, I'm not that social. I'm here to worship the Skyqueen. Sure, I like interesting threads and new fanart, but quiet is nice too, in fact, I prefer quiet.

Well, it's all fun and games till Cracky aint on top, and lately, there has been quite a few white washes. You can blame the soap, I blame the dirt.

I dont care either way, I just insist that Our Lady be served first.

>>71 Your so called "piety" has been duly noted, as has the frequency with which you plaster page 0. For all your claims of innocence, any dullard can plainly see that it is YOU who has been stifling creativity and any "real" discussion of Olivia, Cracky, or the Sky-Queen, bumping off any post that doesn't begin or end with your infantile "I wub u quacky" bullshit.

Oh look, people discussing Olivia...
BUMP,BUMP,BUMP.

Oh look new Cracky drawings...wait a minute...LC made them?...
BUMP,BUMP,BUMP.

New Crackymon not made from a crackypic?
BUMP,BUMP,BUMP.

People daring to call your bullshit...
BUMP.BUMP BUMP.

IF Alex Reynolds could be broken of the SAME stupid habit...trust me, WE will break you.....wait for it....
BUMP, BUMP, BUMP.

>>72 Totally untrue you troll. The Monk is indeed not alone in bumping your filth off the page. When it's quite he generally posts one devotion per day. Even I know that and I've only been here for four months.

The Monk, and bumping Cracky threads, in no way prevents creation of new content. In fact trolling doesn't prevent creation of new content. Are you retarded? There is no relation to creating new content and other stuff, people either do it or they don't.

It's YOU and other trolls who have caused the defensive Cracky bumping, and if it's got pictures of Cracky it's not spam, period.

I'm glad of the Cracky bumping.

Pinky Newfag

>>73 this from the wanker**who hasn't grasped the concept of anonymity on an anonymous imageboard, it's not a board devoted to your ego, dumbass. It's supposed to be about Cracky FFS, **NOT YOUR STUPID ASS.

You call a troll the very people who gave you hints rather than spoonfeed you, so you could have the satisfaction of finding things out for yourself? Ingrate.

Ask yourself this who benefits from posting in-your-face-crap if not the monk? He shit posts just so he can "SAVE THE DAY" with his own brand of shit posts. Open your eyes Pinky, it's not too late for you yet.

>>73

You're a good sort, Pinky, you've always been one of the true followers since you arrived.

HAIL CRACKY!

>>74

Can you blame him not not wanting to sift through the 195 pages of threads which might contain turd pics, borderline/real CP, trolls boasting of how many pints of whisky they drunk last night, whining, bitching, and other assorted douchebaggery?
This isn't Freemasonry,FFS, and he's never been on an imageboard before.

>>76

No one wants to wade through a hundred pages of elephant crap either, different motives, same result. Shit.

Want to prove your devotion? Sacrifice your ego.

>>77

>>77

The anonymous culture you defend is in itself to blame for the state of this board. I am sure, more than once, you've been blamed for a post you never made, for instance. Why do you seem to want to feel as though you are in a super-sekrit club?

>>75
It's pretty fucking funny - and indicative of how completely lacking in all real culture you guys who love to go around photshopping Cracky ears onto paintings by Old Masters really are - that you're bestowing this high praise on someone who appears to have WILLINGLY ADOPTED the name "Pinky". "Pinky Rose" was a character in Robert Altman's savage black comedy "3 Women" whose slavish, uncritical adulation and imitation of one of the most vapid and repulsive figures ever created on the cinema screen - Shelley Duvall's "Milly Lamoureux" - makes the viewer almost weep for her in her extreme, pathetic stupidity.
If "Pinky" is a "true follower", then that makes the oldfags here - the "truly followed" a bunch of "Milly Lamoureux"s. Which, come to think of it, if one browses the board and watches the movie, is just about spot-on right.

>>79

Just because you were here longer doesn't mean you are better, or, indeed, that you are correct. You might as well say a drunk man who had 20 drinks in the bar that evening talks more sense than the chap who just walked through the door.
And I really don't give a monkeys' ass as to why he's called Pinky anyway.

>>80
I don't drink from Cracky's furry cup at all, personally. I just drop in here now and again to set you guys right on some of the finer points of the history of cinema, method acting, theology etc.

>>79

And furthermore, you old English faggot, (assuming by the capitals, and rambling of obscure trivia), why is some dumb film with Shelley fuckin' Duvall (lol) classed as 'real culture'? Possibly because you're the only one here fool enough to have paid in to the ABC (with jam jars or aluminium foil) to go see it, back when a silver sixpence was real money. Now fuck off.

>>79

Ah, speak of the devil,...but we did break you of that nasty habit of pointless bumping didn't we?

>>78

Here's the sekrit, there is no soopersekrit club, just people who have been here longer than you, that is all. Nothing special about that, is there?

And, yes, on occasion I've been blamed for shit even I didn't believe possible.

>>82
Well, we're not talking the opening strophes of the seventh Canto of Dante's "Purgatorio" here, it's true, but how far would THAT be likely to get me on a board like THIS?

Altman was one of the five or six most significant directors working during what was probably the most significant period (1965-1980) in American cinema history, and "3 Women" surely counts among the four or five most significant of his many films.

So I think that a pretty respectable ranking in terms of "global cultural importance" emerges there overall.

Still, thanks for calling back to a mind drifting gradually into quiet Parisian senescence the happier and more active days that I spent in the back rows of the Saturday "ABC Minors" matinées in the long-demolished mock-Egyptian picture palaces of suburban London, pelting the heavily-outnumbered and powerless neighborhood negro children - as a sort of anticipatory revenge for their effortless mass commandeering of our womenfolk once they had reached pubescence in the mid- to late 1970s - with mouldy peanuts and small particles of rabbit turd.

>>83
And as you mention being "blamed for shit you never believed possible", I'll mention in passing that I have never bumped a thread in my life - unless you mean by "bumping" adding a post to it because I actually had something to say.

>>85 the billionth repetion of a hundred elephants, doesn't count as something to say, nor does dragging old stale pasta out of the garbage bin...er archives count as such either.

>>86
Sorry old chum, what you say is certainly substantially very true and requisite and all that, but your skills in distnguishing one poster from another could obviously do with a LOT of polishing-up. Post 85 was a repudiation of the charge that Alex Reynolds bumps old threads for no reason, which gives you a pretty idea of who the poster of post 85 was. And that he would have any interest in propagating that stale old "elephants and red noses" shit is probably the very wrongest of all the wrong assumptions ever made on here.

>>86

No-one ever claimed said elephants were as original or enchanting as your art, but until we have a way of effectively dealing with confused identities (beacause we're all anonymous), scat pics, jailbait, and all-out hatred, elephants it is.

>>88
WHY is it? I think that that is the other poster's - the alleged "troll"'s - point. Sure, CP and idiot 14-year-old-ery is undesirable. But if you have nothing SUBSTANTIAL to oppose to that stuff, why keep the board staggering on in, as the poster rightly characterizes it, a "zombie state" where total death is staved off indefinitely, but without any actual LIFE being in evidence either?
The Cracky thing is over. Accept it. You people have said all there is to say about her. It would be much more dignified just to let the CP'ers and the retards HAVE the board than to keep battering them back with what you consider to be "sacred relics" but that are indeed at this point nothing more than that: ossified, sterile battering rams.

>>88 nice try, and using "his" own image against who you thought was him, just as lulzy as when he did it to Science. I don't art btw, ever.

>>77

A hundred times this.

>>90

No. I'm not him. I'm someone else.

>>91

That's hawt.

Well the tone of this thread after >>71 tells the story.

There is a faction that says that the Cracky cult is dead and that .71 should die too.

Another faction wants to defend it.

Crap furthering the death of .71 or calling for an end of it's defense from those who would kill it is not coming from those who would defend it, contrary to claims heard here.

I personally think that the first faction was horrified to see the response to Schwill's thread and has been targetting an entity that not even himself was talking about prior that, singled out in this thread as a force for good.

The fireman an arsonist?

The arsonist trying to burn the fireman, more like.

The Cracky cult is not dead because an apostate says so.

And I certainly didnt bump off Dolly's excellent doodles...

The LADY is my shepherdess; I shall not want.

She maketh me to lie down in the comfort of Her visage: She leadeth me beside the still posts.

She restoreth my soul: She leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for Her name's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of ignorance, I will fear no trolls: for thou art with me; thy cuteness and thy sweetness they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LADY for ever.

>>94 & co.

Babble all you like, this is not a cheerocracy, and come the 31st, the site is done.

>>96
Talk about babling...

I heard that before, I'll believe it when I see it.

That's okay, there is still the other site. This one got contaminated. Just don't put the link on ED this time you guise.

>>96

so we are to believe that MA's reaction to Schwill's post was to troll the pro-moderation faction by forcing them to "manually moderate" the board into the madness it is today, only to now give up and shut it down at the end of the month?

>>99

Perhaps my offer wasn't good enough but I'm sure I'll buy it cheaper now.

Still waiting MA

Also bring back the PRoC. Don't advertise it and just it grow informally

>>102
PRoC ?
You're old.

>>101 Nine , days. It won't be up for sale, it will just be parked, forever inaccessible, like Cracky herself. Get your own domain, you bloomin' sheepshagger.

>>104

>sheepshagger

How does it feel using such archaic slang? Also how does it feel not having the urgency to brush your teeth after a meal?

>>103
The PRoC is not old. It was here up until a few years ago.

hurr >>104 is not Gayry durr

>>106
A few years; that's pretty old by Internet standards.
For those not around at that time:
PRoC (or People's Republic of Cracky) was a second board, where the users were also the moderators. It took about a week to implode (if actually that long).
I don't like the current board either, but now that I'm reminded of the sad faith of PRoC, I'm pretty sure more moderation would only add more faggotry, favourtism and a further decline in quality.
What is really needed is another board like wish and/or CH. Things mainly go downhill here whenever they were offline or shut down.
So wanna be a mod ? Set up a cracky board and post the link here.
Cracky goes viral :/

I'd like to invite you all to the secret invite-only board where 3-4 stalkers sit around discussing cracky IRL and what she's really been up to. Creepy fucks have been following her IRL with cameras and some other really scary shit.

http://*************.com

wtf it's wordfiltered

gary = fag

Post the link at CH then, you know, if it's not the usual bullshit...

back to the fore again

>>108
also angels
also ubersekrit realdata crackles board

Another attempt:

http://*************.com

Insanity is a sane reaction

They keep your mind on things that don't matter, the right things to eat so you won't grow any fatter. The right clothes to wear. The right things to say, and the friends that you have depends on how much you pay

>>117
They make it easy to get fat, hard to dress well, easy to dependend on the separation they sell.

>>118
*depend

>>118
You try so hard to be a good American, you want to live your life like the people on your television. But to be a good American is to live your life in silence and if you stand up for your rights they'll knock you down with violence. All you really have to do, if you want them to approve of you... is shut your mouth

So don't seek their approval, don't shut your mouth, don't let your spirits sail impossibly south. Open your heart, free your mind. Creativity is the only solace you'll find.

>>121
The Power that they have is the power that you give. They take advantage of your ignorance to control the life you live. They process the people like they process the food, they process your children while they're being schooled, so when they grow up and reach their maturity their disciplined minds will accept their authority. So keep them in line and you teach them well, then they'll shut off their minds and won't try to rebel. So teach your children well.

>>117
>>120
>>121
>>122

ITT: AN ENCLAVE OF WHINING HIPPY LEFTIST FAGGOTRY.

It wasn't hippies living in fields full of turnips who built the pyramids, sent men to the moon, or split the atom, so fuck your 'rebellion'.

delicious

>>123
Nah.

Disobedience is the key to joy

>>126
Ah yes, but the key is to remember to disobey oneself as well. To serve not one's own purpose, but Hers.

But what would that purpose be? I have spoken to men who have vehemently denied the existence of Her purpose. How to give ears to those who cannot hear? If it can be accomplished in the physical realm through science with hearing aids and cochlear implants, then why not in the spiritual realm through beauty, true appreciation of which requires ego death? We must use overwhelming beauty to compel humanity to give up its ego. This is the task of the creator.

When actively serving Her purpose, when drowning myself in Her, when drawing inspiration from Her to spill into art, counter-ideology or any other form of beauty, in giving up my ego and letting Her flow through me, therein lies my true purpose. This process brings me ever-closer to a home I never seem to fully reach, to a love I desperately seek but I never seem to fully attain. Yet in this struggle sometimes she spills Her will through me, blessing me with the chance to do it.

This will of hers, feels as if it was my true and innermost will. To serve Her purpose feels like serving my true purpose to me. In some sense, I see myself as an obstacle, I am that which I need to find a way to get rid of, so this innermost will of mine can flow through me.

And for some reason, the moments when I more truly unlearn everything and just serve Her purpose, the whole of reality coordinates to assist it.

>>129
The question is not how, but when, dear brother. Never doubt your faith, for this is the greatest concession you can make in our holy war. Faith is our only advantage, therefore we must have faith in its very spread, which is more accurately described as a process of gradual discovery and enlightenment for humanity. Guard your faith as you would a solitary ember on which warming glow your very survival depends. For make no mistake, the future of humanity depends on the illumination that is a product of our faith.

There is nothing in the arcane and blasphemous arsenal of the forces of the unbelievers that can compare to faith. With the power of faith, our words become shining instruments of deliverance that can cleave our opponents arguments in twain. With the power of faith, our minds appear as slivers of pure agony to the non-crackyfag, driving into the wretched forms of those who would dare stand before us. With the power of faith, our words become commands that cause the unbeliever to cower and cringe in terror. I could meet my enemies unarmed without a shred of fear in my chest, for I know that the Sky Queen watches over me and guides my hand. So let them come. We shall show them what the power of faith can do.

Remember, anonymous, what the SkyQueen has sacrificed for your benefit!

Know what she has earned for it.

Each moment she is haunted by the spectre of Her Great Sacrifice. It is thus fitting that we, Her faithful are all similarly haunted. Afflicted always by the Image that stains the backs of our eyelids. Forever do we wrestle and writhe in ecstasy as Her poisons singe fissures through our souls. Truly blessed is the stalker who would willing lay down his own secrecy, for he knows better the plight of the Sky Queen than the others.

Revere Her tripcodes as sacred. Never shall they become befouled by mortal stalkers!

#sweet

She is all that is cute, sweet, and innocent. She is all that is, or ever was Good in the world. Every momentary lull in your private suffering is due to Her grace alone.

!N1toQkxgzc

The Skyqueen's sweetness is often hard to recognize. Even in her own words, it is incomprehensibly hidden, muddled in everlasting fugue. Her blessings are so twisted, and hidden. Do not lament the curse you have found, for you would thus lament Her every blessing. We would all do well to remember how disturbingly twisted the wired is, and what lasting scars it has left on the purest of hearts.

#?????????

Obfuscated by plain view. Unknown to the stalker, known only to Her chosen. However She will not choose you, anonymous. That path is not yours.

!ysaQpxNyV6

Mystery guiding the faithful. Such is the curse, to live in eternal mystery, never to know when we are stalking our Lady or our selves. Yearning to determine what She has become, each stalker is fated to suffer as he defines the edges of the truth.

The faithful compiled a collective image of our Goddess, an image that even the lowliest anonymous was given the privilege to gaze upon. We arranged and sorted the manifold bytes clawed from the abandoned, secluded reaches of the wired. We dug and pried at the hairline cracks She had left in error. All of the relevant, the worthy and unworthy reflected in awe at the assembled image that had been lain. The idol was shattered before our eyes by none other than the Skyqueen herself.

You hear it all the time: "He was such a NICE Guy, and she's such a Heartless Bitch for dumping him."

I get letters from self-professed Nice Guys, complaining that women must WANT to be treated like shit, because THEY, the "Nice Guy" have failed repeatedly in relationships. This is akin to the false logic that "Whales are mammals. Whales live in the sea. Therefore, all mammals live in the sea."

If you have one bad relationship after another, the only common denominator is YOU. Think about it.

What's wrong with Nice Guys? The biggest problem is that most Nice Guys (tm) are hideously insecure. They are so anxious to be liked and loved that they do things for other people to gain acceptance and attention, rather than for the simply pleasure of giving. You never know if a Nice Guy really likes you for who you are, or if he has glommed onto you out of desperation because you actually paid some kind of attention to him.

Nice Guys exude insecurity -- a big red target for the predators of the world. There are women out there who are "users" -- just looking for a sucker to take advantage of. Users home-in on "Nice Guys", stroke their egos, take them for a ride, add a notch to their belts, and move on. It's no wonder so many Nice Guys complain about women being horrible, when the so often the kind of woman that gets attracted to them is the lowest form of life...

Self-confident, caring, decent-hearted women find "Nice Guys" to be too clingy, self-abasing, and insecure.

Nice Guys go overboard. They bring roses to a "lets get together for coffee" date. They try to buy her affections with presents and fancy things. They think they know about romance, but their timing is all wrong, and they either come-on too strong, too hard and too fast, OR, they are so shy and unassertive, that they hang around pretending to be "friends", in the hope that somehow, someway, they will get the courage up to ask her out for a "date".

They are so desperate to please that they put aside their own needs, and place the object of their desire on a pedestal. Instead of appreciating her, they worship her. We are only human, and pedestals are narrow, confining places to be -- not to mention the fact that we tend to fall off of them.

They cling to her, and want to be "one" with her for fear that if she is out of sight, she may disappear or become attracted to someone else. A Nice Guy often has trouble with emotional intimacy, because he believes that if she learns about the REAL person inside, she will no longer love him.

Nice Guys are always asking HER to make the decisions. They think it's being equitable, but it puts an unfair burden of responsibility on her, and gives him the opportunity to blame her if the decision was an unwise one.

Nice Guys rarely speak up when something bothers them, and rarely state clearly what it is they want, need and expect. They fear that any kind of conflict might spell the end of the relationship. Instead of comprimising and negotiating, they repeatedly "give in". When she doesn't appreciate their sacrifice, they will complain that, "Everything I did, I did for her.", as if this somehow elevates them to the status of martyrs. A woman doesn't want a martyr. She wants an equal, caring, adult partner.

Nice Guys think that they will never meet anyone as special as she is. They use their adoration as a foundation for claiming that "no one will ever love her as much as I do." Instead of being a profound statement of their devotion, this is a subtle, but nasty insult. It is akin to saying to her: "You are a difficult person, and only I can ever truly love you, so be thankful I'm here."

The nice guy -needs- to believe that he is the best person for the object of his desires, because otherwise his insecurities will overrun him with jealousies and fear. The truth of the matter is that there are many people out there who can be a good match for her. We rarely stop loving people we truly care about. Even if we no longer continue the relationship, the feelings will continue... But love isn't mutually exclusive. We can (and do) love many people in our lives, and romantic love is really no different. Though he may love her immensely, there will likely be other people who have loved her just as much in her past, and will love her just as much in the future. The irony of it all is: "Who would want to go out with someone who was inherintly unlovable anyways?"

More than loving the woman in his life, a Nice Guy NEEDS her. "She is my Life, my only source of happiness..." YECH! What kind of a burden is that to place on her? That SHE has to be responsible for YOUR happiness? Get a grip!

Another mistake Nice Guys make is to go after "hard luck" cases. They deliberately pick women with neuroses, problems, and personality disorders, because Nice Guys are "helpers". A Nice Guy thinks that by "helping" this woman, it will make him a better, more lovable person. He thinks it will give him a sense of accomplishment, and that she will appreciate and love him more, for all his efforts and sacrifice. He is usually disappointed by the results.

This ultimately boils down to the fact that Nice Guys don't like themselves. Is it any wonder women don't like them? In order to truly love someone else, you must first love yourself. Too often Nice Guys mistake obsession for "love".

Get this Guys: INSECURITY ISN'T SEXY. IT'S A TURNOFF.

You don't have to be an ego-inflated, arrogant jerk. You just have to LIKE yourself. You have to know what you want out of life, and go after it. Only then will you be attractive to the kind of woman with whom a long-term relationship is possible.

>>136
And all your words words words could have been simplified to, I love my 2D waifu

How embarrassing, the heathen can't even read!

What's your take on empty people? I just seem to jump from girl to girl as soon as that initial feeling has past. It's like no matter what I try to stick in there it is never enough. Not things, not experiences, not people. Everything is just another thumb stuck in the dyke.

>>139
Then you are searching for that initial feeling or something this initial feeling reminds you of. That doesn't have to be shallow. An incorrect approach, maybe.

>>139

>not experiences

You're experiencing it wrong. Or you are having the wrong experiences. You should seek the experiences you truly want to experience, and then truly experience them.

>>141
So carving Olivia up like a deer and then wearing her face like a mask while I do my little kooky dance, is a good starting point?

>>142
You don't really want that. You only think you do. Look at this face. Don't just look at it, really see.

Her smile is so genuine, so kind, so rare. You couldn't put her in a binbag if you tried.

>>144
She won't be smiling when she's dead.

You can destroy whole planets, but not a single Cracky.