Regarding the Anonymous page
I've looked into the Anon/WBC incident before for an essay on freedom of speech as it relates to Internet culture, and while both WBC and Anon showed their typical lack of civility and good manners towards each other they didn't violate the 1st Amendment in any way. I might have made a mistake in the report, though, so if you could show me where one side or the other violated 1st Amendment rights I'd be happy to concede the point. Blessings of the Almighty on you :) 16:25, 3 October 2012 (EDT)
Seeing as you've blocked me in the past for sometimes having a less-than-cheerful attitude...
What the hell are you doing?
Why have you just unblocked this user - you better have a good reason! EJamesW 17:23, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
- No need to block non-malicious morons. Just let them know that they are being ignored.Brenden 17:39, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
- DON'T DO IT AGAIN~! Look at the history you moron! EJamesW 17:46, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
You've just made yourself look a total idiot. I can't believe I was the one who recommended for promotion. EJamesW 17:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
- Thank you, EJamesW </sarcasm>brenden 18:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
What does </sarcasm> mean?
Does that mean you're trying to be sarcastic? But you can't think of anything witty or amusing to type?
Brenden, why don't you just say sorry and leave it at that? (Have you looked at the history of User:Reactionary22, you will see that I gave this guy a chance to respond and chandged his block settings.)
I suppose some Christians never can admit they're wrong...
EJamesW 18:17, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
- Ease up E, Brendan has done the same on more than one occasion. Normally we frown upon adjusting others' blocks but no harm, no foul.--Jpatt 19:04, 2 November 2012 (EDT)