🐮 Lolcow Timothy "TJ" Church / Cowlick - Failed Literotica Writer &/or Null's Best Friend

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Wow, that's what psychiatrists call some "loose association." That's almost Chris-worthy. He picked up "British" (without understanding the "candy salesman" joke) and vaguely parsed something about song lyrics, and used those references to poorly serve something he didn't have to quote from the Rolling Stones at all. An author with a strong ethos (you do know the other two points of the rhetorical triangle, right, Teej?) would just say, "I understand you want a translation of two really simple French sentences, one of which is a semi-rhetorical question, but you're not getting any translations from me." Boom, mic drop. I would almost say that quoting the Stones was a really, really weak "appeal to authority," if I believed Teej even knew what that was (and including/not including the concept of logical fallacy).

Also, nice backpedaling on not caring whether the audience is gay or straight, Teejmeister. You clearly think being gay is a bad enough thing that it's your go-to insult for people who may not -- even if they are straight -- feel upset at being told they have gay sex, in the wrong bathroom &/or in their own homes. Forgive me speaking for you straight forumites, but you mostly seem pretty... how do I put this... secure about that. So a "You're gay" joke is about as hurtful as "Your mother wears combat boots &/or Doc Martens &/or other footwear that is not traditionally associated with femininity."
 
Billy_Sama said:
I wonder what type of guy TJ thinks of himself then :3
Click to expand...

Adonis_Mazarin_Louvre_MR239.jpg
 
NobleGreyHorse said:
An author with a strong ethos (you do know the other two points of the rhetorical triangle, right, Teej?) would just say, "I understand you want a translation of two really simple French sentences, one of which is a semi-rhetorical question, but you're not getting any translations from me." Boom, mic drop.
Click to expand...
I purposely kept them quite simple (for his benefit). If he even acknowledged that the last sentence was a semi-rhetorical question, I would have been satisfied.

(Probably because it would have been a demonstration of self-awareness AND the proper way to stand up to "authority.")
 
flossman said:
I purposely kept them quite simple (for his benefit). If he even acknowledged that the last sentence was a semi-rhetorical question, I would have been satisfied.
Click to expand...

You just know if he ever bothers to translate them, he'd cheat and try to use Google Translate.
 
Saney said:
You just know if he ever bothers to translate them, he'd cheat and try to use Google Translate.
Click to expand...
I even told him to show his knowledge without using that, but who am I kidding? He didn't read a damn word of my post. Too busy getting oiled down by his newly-purchesd manservant (nurse that changes his nappies).
 
Moi-même, je pense que tu as raison. M. de l'Église veut seulement des attentions romantiques du serviteur Ulrik, et ne veut traduire rien... pardon, ne peut traduire rien.
 
Something I love is that Mr. Church seems to be so protective of his musical's title (thirteen years in the making, folks! Wagner wrote the libretto of the entire Ring cycle, and completed the music for Rheingold and Walküre in less time) that he always abbreviates it as "L. E."

Dude. We know it's called "Law Enfarcement". Nobody's going to steal that title, trust.
 
TeeJ, in the impossible scenario this thread vanishes and we forget you ever existed, what will you do?

Because really, all it seems to be that you do is just come here and bitch about this thread's existence.

What happens if that actually comes to pass? You will be without redundant purpose. You will cease to exist.
 
Cowlick said:
Also, I am not "fluent" in autism (which I don't believe even has its own language)
Click to expand...
I am not autistic! By the way, I decided to interpret the phrasing of your comment in the most rigidly literal manner imaginable.
 
BOLDYSPICY! said:
Aww, man, I'm super-late to the party! I hope @deductionotaku comes back---when TJ vanished I thought he may have finally chased our hero off!
Click to expand...

I'm still here. I haven't had much to say on the subject of TJChurch though. You've been translating his posts fine without me, his presence nullifies the need for my stories, and quite frankly I'm having fun as an observer. If there's anything I believe needs clarifying, I'll be sure to return to a more active role. Until then, I'm taking it easy.

Although, in order to make this a more on-topic post, I do recall one thing I can contribute. At least one person asked whether or not TJChurch had any fans on CHYOO. Discounting his alternates, he has one, as well as one supporter who believes his actions neutral. The neutral party is the site's other story moderator - not the one I mentioned before, the one who criticized TJChurch's writing - and doesn't quite understand TJChurch's banishment. Most of the offenses people broach are conduct rules that were imposed by the community due to the complete absence of an administrator, while the remainder were the silent "No hacking" rules. However, this other moderator is one of those guys who only enforces a rule if it's explicitly written by the administrators; I found this rather odd since this moderator was on board for the banishment of a troublemaker who broke no actual rules yet was still banished, possibly due to being a victim of this other user. Therefore, our claims of harassing emails in which TJChurch demands approval and the flooding of his roundabout threads fell on deaf ears. Even the malicious ratings and reviews left by TJChurch on the work of others were brushed aside because "The ratings don't work" - only partially true, by the way, without addressing that it fails to justify ignoring the feedback. While not exactly a "supporter," he has worked against us and didn't seem doesn't seem to understand that TJChurch hacks the site and self-rates via alternate accounts, points which nullify most of his arguments.

The real supporter is a regular member who also doesn't see fault with those who don't fault him. This user is the lone positive voter in a forum poll asking for people's feelings about TJChurch, discounting the votes from an alternate, and made the topic "Supportive of TJChurch" which sank like a stone. As far as I could tell, the only reason this user showed such favor was TJChurch was the only common contributor to his stories. Most folks who wrote for his stories supplied only one or two threads and only for one story, but TJChurch supplied around six nightly and wrote for multiple stories. This guy was so hard up for contributors that anyone who wrote anything would get it approved and receive trusted status on the story - which means its threads are approved automatically - which only excited TJChurch more; TJChurch desperately craves this status. In short, this user does everything TJChurch wants from a user, so has never been on the receiving end of TJChurch's tirades and hacking. Furthermore, this user made a request during our purge that his stories be spared, a request which was met under the condition that only old threads would be given this treatment. The condition was apparently ignored, as this user repeatedly protested the removal of new threads and saw this as evidence supporting TJChurch's claims of us being "corrupt" and that he was the victim.

And I'll throw in two fun and related aside, I never touched this user's posts, which should prove that supporting TJChurch will not invoke my wrath as a moderator. Yet TJChurch insisted that I was deleting posts that spoke positively of him, thereby discouraging the outward support of his followers and explaining why it looked like no one was on his side when he claimed to have multiple fans. As for the hacking, self-rating, and malicious rating, TJChurch has acknowledged doing this - though this vanishes once we make a formal accusation - and justifies it by saying, "Since I've been accused of doing it when I wasn't doing it, I may as well do it."
 
Last edited:
flossman said:
When I've said "I love you," I was using something referred to as "sarcasm," which is defined as "the use of irony to mock or convey contempt."

As for your use of lyrics from "You Can't Always Get What You Want," I'll continue the quote, which says "but if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need." I tried to be as clear and specific as possible with my request that you provide simple proof to a claim you have made, despite your insulting my English skills, which is what I needed. You avoided a chance to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your claim was accurate.

Based on this, either you find me so contemptible and unworthy of acknowledgement (disproven by the mere fact that you do, in fact, acknowledge my posts and requests), or your claim was false. Admitting you're wrong is a sign of intellectual strength, as it demonstrates that you don't see yourself as omniscient and understand the value of learning and truth.

I'm disappointed in you.

(As an aside, you'll notice that I haven't claimed, even once, that I'm intellectually superior to you.)
Click to expand...

You've never made that claim for the same reason I haven't provided proof that I am intellectually-superior: Any/all of us posting here proves my statement as correct near-constantly.

Also, if you believe there is even a chance I find you unworthy of acknowledgement, why should that matter to you? I don't mean you individually, but any of you. As I have posted repeatedly (in the thread & "conversations"), none of you knew me at all, & yet someone chose to make a thread posting about me! Maybe it only lasted for one or two posts before I arrived... However, only recently, I was without a way to get online at all for quite some time, & discussion of me in this thread (as well as posts to me specifically in several "Conversations") continued. If anything, this proves that I am intellectually-superior enough in that I can get along fine without any of you (or even discussion of any kind about any of you), whereas (despite what many of you claim), you cannot continue your worthless-regardless lives without thinking &/or writing about me.

Lastly, you want to know what type of guy I think myself to be (I think was the question you were aiming for, incomplete though it truly was)? Not a necro- anything is for sure. To be honest, I've thought myself a few different types of people over my ongoing lifetime... However, I did so each time only briefly, before considering several other people & things. Unlike all of you, I am not obsessed in any part with myself, nor am I entirely dead between the neck & the waist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom