Would you trade Beet for texarkana back?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes.

And that's saying A LOT.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Honestly, yes.

Beet never posts anything worthwhile.

Texarkana sometimes had good things to post.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Honestly, yes.

Beet never posts anything worthwhile.

Texarkana sometimes had good things to post.

No.

[Donerail]

No, Beet posts less than texarkana did.

[Pericles]

Dear God no.

[NewYorkExpress]

No. I don't want someone who is flat-out putting pornography in their signature, or who admits to paying a prostitute (even if they tip her well) on the forum.

We (sort of) are a family forum, even if we don't act like it. Texarkana's behavior was the exact opposite.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Yes

[Santander]

No. I don't want someone who is flat-out putting pornography in their signature, or who admits to paying a prostitute (even if they tip her well) on the forum.

Legality aside, I don't understand why this is such a problem compared to, say, people openly discussing their sexual orientation on the forum, which I find appalling.

[dead0man]

the name texarkana rings a bell, but I don't remember anything about the poster.

[morgieb]

That's too far.

[Lechasseur]

No. I don't want someone who is flat-out putting pornography in their signature, or who admits to paying a prostitute (even if they tip her well) on the forum.

We (sort of) are a family forum, even if we don't act like it. Texarkana's behavior was the exact opposite.

[mvd10]

No. Modern Beet is a gift from Dave Leip. I want Texarkana back if he promises to stop with the weird signatures though.

[PragmaticPopulist]

No. I can actually stand Beet, even though I can't quite figure out if he's serious or just putting on a persona.

TexArkana was basically Eharding without the overt racism. He would post 100 posts a day sometimes, with little real content.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No.  How 'bout you, Vlad?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No. I don't want someone who is flat-out putting pornography in their signature, or who admits to paying a prostitute (even if they tip her well) on the forum.

Legality aside, I don't understand why this is such a problem compared to, say, people openly discussing their sexual orientation on the forum, which I find appalling.

It's not a problem. A common misconception is this had anything to do with texarkana being banned, when the mods never even mentioned it.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

That's tough. Texarkana often had good content I found, but he was just plain weird. And weirdly open about it too boot.

Beet's been trolling a lot lately, but I think I'd pick him.

[Lord Admirale]

Absolutely.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I remember making a list that I was going to write out like one of those Top 10 YouTube videos to post on AAD of the ten worst Atlas posters ever, but never got around to it. It was like this (this is before Beet got terrible):

10-jerryarkansas
9-coraxion
8-texarkana
7-jfern
6-Gully Foyle
5-TNF
4-krazen
3-Eharding
2-Einzige
1-J. J.

[Landslide Lyndon]

No. I don't want someone who is flat-out putting pornography in their signature, or who admits to paying a prostitute (even if they tip her well) on the forum.

Photos of chubby black women don't constitute pornography, unless I missed something far more explicit.

Also, I didn't expect you to be such a prude when it comes to paid sex.

[YE]

No. I don't want someone who is flat-out putting pornography in their signature, or who admits to paying a prostitute (even if they tip her well) on the forum.

We (sort of) are a family forum, even if we don't act like it. Texarkana's behavior was the exact opposite.

[NewYorkExpress]

No. I don't want someone who is flat-out putting pornography in their signature, or who admits to paying a prostitute (even if they tip her well) on the forum.

Photos of chubby black women don't constitute pornography, unless I missed something far more explicit.

Also, I didn't expect you to be such a prude when it comes to paid sex.

It's not that I'm a prude, but that this is a family forum (well, at least it's supposed to be) so discussion over when one has actually slept with a prostitute crosses a line for me.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

No. I don't want someone who is flat-out putting pornography in their signature, or who admits to paying a prostitute (even if they tip her well) on the forum.

Photos of chubby black women don't constitute pornography, unless I missed something far more explicit.

Also, I didn't expect you to be such a prude when it comes to paid sex.

It's not that I'm a prude, but that this is a family forum (well, at least it's supposed to be) so discussion over when one has actually slept with a prostitute crosses a line for me.

There's stuff that is a million times worse posted every single day in this forum

(FTR I don't think there's anything wrong with posting mildly sexy pictures or having had sex with a prostitute)

[NewYorkExpress]

No. I don't want someone who is flat-out putting pornography in their signature, or who admits to paying a prostitute (even if they tip her well) on the forum.

Photos of chubby black women don't constitute pornography, unless I missed something far more explicit.

Also, I didn't expect you to be such a prude when it comes to paid sex.

It's not that I'm a prude, but that this is a family forum (well, at least it's supposed to be) so discussion over when one has actually slept with a prostitute crosses a line for me.

There's stuff that is a million times worse posted every single day in this forum

Clearly we have lazy mods (other than Virginia, and maybe Torie).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No

[Calthrina950]

I would not have any problem having TexArkana back here. He's also on AlternateHistory.com, and seems to keep himself in order over there. Moreover, he makes excellent maps and electoral scenarios. So long as he refrained from the sexual innuendos and kept his signature appropriate, I wouldn't have any problem with him returning. However, given how he managed to offend most of the posters here, and given the controversy surrounding some of his opinions, I know that he will never be allowed back here.