Glen Davis at it again (NSFW)

[pharelfor3]

man. cant believe this thread got ruined. smh

 

[noblekane]

Originally Posted by NikeAirForce1

at yall posting definitions.

What line is Glen Davis stepping on?  Ska has already admitted to the line as being "effeminate idiot" after backtracking from just "idiot."  Look up the origin of the F-word for homosexuals.  It has nothing to do with homosexuality.  Yet, it's a slur today.  It's all about context and how it is used.

You want more proof of yall taking shots at Glen Davis' sexual orientation or sexuality in these Glen Davis threads?

No One Saw What Glen Davis Did Last Night During The Spurs Game? Vol. Pants On The Ground 
http://niketalk.com/topic/247012/Glenn-Big-Baby-Davis-is-a-habitual-Line-stepper-Vol-2?page=1Glenn Big Baby Davis is a habitual Line stepper Vol. 2
AYOOoo..Glen Davis Raises More Suspicions Vol. Living A Lie


a few select quotes from said threads.

Originally Posted by mjshoefanatic

Originally Posted by Lemonade41

He's just giving Richard Jefferson a preview of their post game activities.

Originally Posted by miamib30514

wow. In front of Jefferson just made it that much more disturbing.

Originally Posted by supahoopa

 i got excited when i heard this thread is back.. 
son is a habitual line stepper

seems like you're doing a bit of line stepping yourself...

Originally Posted by pdoggy85

Gay baby?

Originally Posted by Smedroc

Glen "Ayo" Davis

Originally Posted by IKnowRap

damn I would have never known dude was getting roasted on some ayo tip on here

I know dude, and he aint ayo by no means in real life...far as I know....but nonetheless the roasting is funny as hell

 

 "habitaual line stepper" thread is 50 pages

nickname: G- Double... long as he rocking the #11

Originally Posted by Ryda421

glen out of the closet davis

Originally Posted by shaqtus92

Originally Posted by mjd77


J.E. Skeets

Just happened to be in a thread about Glen Davis. Hmmmmm. Carry on.

Originally Posted by shaqtus92

Originally Posted by mjd77


J.E. Skeets

Just happened to be in a thread about Glen Davis. Hmmmmm. Carry on.

notice the espn ticker?





Nothing to do with Glen Davis being gay? Right...

 I wonder why most of these Glen Davis threads get locked.  hmmm..  It's not Ska locking them though because he participates in them.





nikeairforce1 this is a serious question. are you a homosexual? 
maybe we can understand where u are coming from if you open up...

 

[fraij da 5 11]

I don't see any quotes from Ska in that post though...

 

[tupac003]

fraij da 5 11 wrote:

---

I don't see any quotes from Ska in that post though...

I think he was tryin to prove a point that we (NT) are constantly bashing Glen Davis for possibly being Homosexual. 

Might be true. Might not be. It's an opinion. I don't think this thread was going that way but it does seem as if we (NT) may be a little guilty.
  

 

[darthska]

NikeAirForce1:

---

Want an even simpler breakdown?
NTer posts a picture of Glen Davis or whomever covering his genitals and chest with kid's toys.

You call Glen Davis gay in response to said picture.

Right, that definitely happened.

fraij da 5 11:

---

I don't see any quotes from Ska in that post though...
In his mind, I did, and that's all that matters to him… like whoever it was that said Lebron's 6 imaginary rings are more than Kobe's 5 actual rings.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

Sheesh.

 

[damnitzdom]

 

[harlemtothebronx]

 

[nikeairforce1]

Originally Posted by 23ska909red02

NikeAirForce1:

---

Want an even simpler breakdown?
NTer posts a picture of Glen Davis or whomever covering his genitals and chest with kid's toys.

You call Glen Davis gay in response to said picture.div>

Right, that definitely happened.

fraij da 5 11:

---

I don't see any quotes from Ska in that post though...
In his mind, I did, and that's all that matters to him… like whoever it was that said Lebron's 6 imaginary rings are more than Kobe's 5 actual rings.

I'm not saying that Ska is the main perpetrator of these threads.  Those quotes, plucked from previous Glen Davis threads, were to show what goes on in these threads.

You seriously think you're slick huh? 

Originally Posted by 23ska909red02

Stepping lines.

Habitually.

Nothing to do with him being or acting gay?  Oh, you meant "effeminate." You're just playing semantics.

I'm calling you out, specifically, because you have a responsibility to stop these posts as an administrator of NikeTalk.  Yet, I've seen your name pop up before in these Glen Davis threads, where people openly ridicule Glen Davis for being or acting gay in their eyes, and you do nothing.  With the Sports forum being your turf, you've not only seen and ignored these kinds of comments in these threads, but you've also contributed to them.

[h3]NikeTalk Rules of Conduct [/h3]
Section1 - General Conduct

1. Derogatory comments regardingrace, ethnic background, language, gender, sexual orientation or religion arestrictly prohibited. The use of slurs and/or hate speech will result inimmediate and permanent banishment from the community without warning.

 

[university of nike]

Shut up already.

 

[noskey]

Everyone getting trolled.

 

[ace rawstein]

Everybody does know that is not Glen right???

i went to school with Glen and I actually know dude so i dont think he gay at all but I i do kinda laugh at some of the stuff yall say about him on here

and i actually thought the "habitual line stepping" thing was referring to that but now that the "definition" has been posted, i guess i should be surprised its not as many ppl thinking he is really gay as i thought lol

i kinda find it hard to believe most ppl arent implying that tho

 

[scientific method]

The Glenn Davis threads are 100% about his sexuality. Anybody implying the opposite is just lying, but SKA is a mod so rules don't apply. He always does the modified swear words things too which is a violation of Niketalk R.O.C.

 

[darthska]

Like I said, your argument against me is hinged on an assumption you're making about my perception, and that's a weak foundation at best. Any argument founded on "I think that you think ______, and that outrages me" is weak, and trying to prove any point based on that foundation is near impossible.

Repeatedly posting in an attempt to accomplish something that is near impossible is one of the ways I define trolling.

And I know you're familiar with the rules, so you know that trolling is not allowed.

And as a preemptive strike, I'll say that I hope that you quote what I just said and say something along the lines of me threatening to ban you just because you proved me wrong or made fun of me or anything like that. I seriously hope you do that so I can go through all the forums and quote all kinds of backlash against me said by people who are active members (*edit* and right on cue, there's Scientific Method right above me

). I have never banned anyone based on their opinion of me, and I'm not going to start with you. But if I feel someone is disruptive to the forum, according to the rules that you are apparently so aware of, I give them AMPLE opportunity to figure something else out, and if they fail to do so, I ban them. That's how I'm always done it, that's how I'll always do it, and that's exactly how I am in real life in all capacities where I'm an authority figure.

You take issue with this thread and the topic of this thread? I've got no problem with that. You want to get your point across by continuously trying to prove a point that is based on an assumption you're making about my perception? That's going to go nowhere; figure something else out.

 

[N41D]

Dudes panties are bunched awfully tight...

 

[CP1708]

Damn, I miss the days when we could laugh at Baby actin silly and all that, now we gettin lectured and quoted like a muh 

 

The actual Habitual thread is one of THEE greatest threads in NT history.  More tears were shed over that thread than any I can think of, not a single word of it is making fun of any person's preference, or anything else, it's merely people laughin at some funny pics, some funny poses, etc.  It's really not that serious.

Not everything needs to be a crusade bruh.  Multiple mods been thru here, not just Ska, and they ain't lock it up either, so it can't be as bad as you want to make it sound.  Chilax.

 

[dmxfury]

So is Ska banned or what?

 

[damnitzdom]

Originally Posted by CP1708


Damn, I miss the days when we could laugh at Baby actin silly and all that, now we gettin lectured and quoted like a muh 

 

The actual Habitual thread is one of THEE greatest threads in NT history.  More tears were shed over that thread than any I can think of, not a single word of it is making fun of any person's preference, or anything else, it's merely people laughin at some funny pics, some funny poses, etc.  It's really not that serious.

Not everything needs to be a crusade bruh.  Multiple mods been thru here, not just Ska, and they ain't lock it up either, so it can't be as bad as you want to make it sound.  Chilax.

the fact that the thread went on for YEARS was what made it so funny.

 

[socal0223]

dmxfury:

---

So is Ska banned or what?
[doc holliday] That's the rumor. [/doc]

 

[harlemtothebronx]

Originally Posted by University of Nike

Shut up already.

 

[va757va]

Warned.

 

[ballinboykz]

As someone had mentioned earlier...

This is why we cant have nice things.

 

[nikeairforce1]

Originally Posted by 23ska909red02

Like I said, your argument against me is hinged on an assumption you're making about my perception, and that's a weak foundation at best. Any argument founded on "I think that you think ______, and that outrages me" is weak, and trying to prove any point based on that foundation is near impossible.

Repeatedly posting in an attempt to accomplish something that is near impossible is one of the ways I define trolling.

And I know you're familiar with the rules, so you know that trolling is not allowed.

And as a preemptive strike, I'll say that I hope that you quote what I just said and say something along the lines of me threatening to ban you just because you proved me wrong or made fun of me or anything like that. I seriously hope you do that so I can go through all the forums and quote all kinds of backlash against me said by people who are active members (*edit* and right on cue, there's Scientific Method right above me

). I have never banned anyone based on their opinion of me, and I'm not going to start with you. But if I feel someone is disruptive to the forum, according to the rules that you are apparently so aware of, I give them AMPLE opportunity to figure something else out, and if they fail to do so, I ban them. That's how I'm always done it, that's how I'll always do it, and that's exactly how I am in real life in all capacities where I'm an authority figure.

You take issue with this thread and the topic of this thread? I've got no problem with that. You want to get your point across by continuously trying to prove a point that is based on an assumption you're making about my perception? That's going to go nowhere; figure something else out.

Except my argument is not based on "I think that you think."  It is my conclusion though.  But seriously though, you're responding to my arguments with what essentially boils down to a, "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." 

Here's my argument again for you that I've already laid out clearly, while you continue to claim my arguments are just based on "I think that you think."

You called Glen Davis a habitual line stepper.  FACT.

Habitual line stepper = "acting gay" to put it simply. FACT.

Most Glen Davis threads are made to highlight and ridicule his "effeminate" (to put it in your backtracked word) behavior. FACT.

We should put a stop to this because not only is it offensive and hostile to gays, but it violates NikeTalk's ROC.


and If we're going to use your litmus test for whether I've shown evidence for what I claim...

Repeatedly posting in an attempt to accomplish something that is near impossible is one of the ways I define trolling.

I've already passed it since other members in this thread have agreed with me.

Go ahead and point out what rule I've violated though.  It's certainly not "trolling" as defined by the ROC.  Making posts with sole intention to create problems?  Nope. Hijacking this post?  You're gonna have to prove that I posted with intent to derail this thread (which I didn't).

Luckily, we're not subject to what you personally define as trolling.

 

[nikeairforce1]

Originally Posted by VA757VA

Originally Posted by PharelFor3

man. cant believe this thread got ruined. smh

Damn shame...I hate

 

[quik1987]

sigh