I have to make one very obvious point.
Yes. Steve is IP banned. There was always a guest viewing, and Steve knew what was being said. It was a fair assumption that he was snooping using a proxy.
A rather obvious reply, then: Steve wasn't IP banned the whole time, far from it. Also, quite a few members use a proxy, all the time.
My post was in reply to Les' comment that:You were not posting to two people you knew were IP banned and could not see what was written. Credit this board with at least a little bit of common sense and a bit of memory recall.
He is talking about the time Steve was IP banned, and he appears to be claiming that my comments about Pandora were meant as an insult to him because Steve and Pandora were banned, and therefore had absolutely no idea what was happening on this site.
Is that what I appear to be claiming?
Ok if this was what I was claiming then the fact that he had more than some idea of what was happening because up to the point he was IP banned he was viewing the threads in question as a guest and posting as such on Facebook (a fact which I and everyone on here knew) would be a kind of stupid thing to claim.
That is if this is what you are inferring that I am trying to claim this.
“had absolutely no idea what was happening on this site” Clever use of wording
Of course he had “some” idea of what was happening. He had read a good chunk of what was said.
BUT then he was IP banned (as he was seen as a real threat to the site).
You were aware approximately of when this happened because it was posted from what Pandora said about not being able to join if she wanted because she and he were IP banned, and this too was discussed and confirmed.
Until that time he had great access and so had a rather good idea of what was happening.
Probably best not muddying the waters . It is misrepresentation which I think is a rather close cousin to a lie. The callout I had with you was rather crammed full of such misrepresentations. Making a bogus claim (pretending that it was one of my values, or i had said it or inferred it) and then defending against it, and the like. You really don’t have to. It is stupid.
I have to make one very obvious point.
Yes. Steve is IP banned. There was always a guest viewing, and Steve knew what was being said. It was a fair assumption that he was snooping using a proxy.
A rather obvious reply, then: Steve wasn't IP banned the whole time, far from it. Also, quite a few members use a proxy, all the time.
My post was in reply to Les' comment that:You were not posting to two people you knew were IP banned and could not see what was written. Credit this board with at least a little bit of common sense and a bit of memory recall.
He is talking about the time Steve was IP banned, and he appears to be claiming that my comments about Pandora were meant as an insult to him because Steve and Pandora were banned, and therefore had absolutely no idea what was happening on this site.
A lot of misunderstandings seem to circulate over for how long TCO was IP banned (and thus Pandora by proxy), and I've seen people assume that he was when he wasn't. I can't see how any of the above comments can be placed in time to one or the other situation.
TBH it doesn't really matter.
Les' point is that I was trying to insult him by saying what I said about Pandora whilst Steve was banned. My point is that, at all times during the argument, I assumed Steve had some kind of access to this site, whether it be full access, or access through a proxy.
@Odeon. Absolutely not. I believed Les and I had made up, and I had no desire at all to get back involved in figjting him. My insults were aimed at Steve and Pandora, as well as to amuse myself and some others.
Right….you assumed IP banning meant nothing and the term Rancidora had absolutely no connection nor origin in the term Rancid that you had a long protracted callout on with me. No connection at all and the term was used not to get at the person that you had a callout with because you had used the term (who was on the site and having to put up with your partying on and celebrating upsetting my friend) but was instead against two people off site who were IP banned…sure Butterflies.
The fact that the term was used was coincidence. I understand your argument.
Truly I do. I just think you are lying.
Just been thinking about how i would like this site to be? I don't know really, i was sort of happy with it.
I liked it enough to go on facebook and defend it.
I liked enough of you enough to get irked when whole site got slagged!
So, my question is...
Is this site not worth defending?
For me, the site is worth defending, and I think if this was anybody other than Les' friend, nobody would have had any issues with what we done
This whole thing has been blown out of all proportion, and I think it shows that if you shout loud enough and stamp your feet hard enough, you will always find some people who will take you seriously.
Excepting of course no-one is shouting loudly or stamping their feet...are they butterflies?
This is another one of those misrepresenting things you keep doing.
Someone is pointing out their opinion on something that matters to them from their perspective and trying to illustrate why they think what they think. Is this what you call "shout loud enough and stamp your feet hard enough"? If it is then your understanding of communication perhaps a little lacking. I am not serious of course. I do not believe you do not know the difference. I believe you just want to misrepresent my actions and then try to make a case around a known falsity. This is again what you did manyy times in the callout I had with you and I picked it up each time. It is rather transparent.
Are you concerned that people do not take you seriously? Stop being dishonest in how you represent things and they will take you more seriously perhaps? Couldn't hurt, in any case.
I agree that the site is worth defending. But then I have never questioned this. In fact the repeating myself has begun and I am mentally facepalming here.
Do not try to read a subtext in here that does not exist. it is pretty clear.
TCO pulling shit over at Facebook? TCO. Poor fucking form and he deserved to be taken to task personally for it.
TCO using Pandora's account? Stupid and poor form and
he is responsible for it. "Posse" going over there? TCO. He bouight that shit on himself. If it was not concerns i had that Pandora would get roped into it and that it was likely to ruin another online community for her, I likely would be part of that too. (I use the word "posse" because i think it best fits. I do not think of it in a negative light. A group of concerned people going as a united group to right a wrong)
My views on whether the site ought to be defended from people attacking it is pretty clear and not in ANY way inferring it should not be defended from people taking potshots at it.
Inferred nowhere.
Celebrating giving my mate a flogging over here and talking up what a bitch she is whilst her friend is in the room? Everyone involved in said celebrating. Fucking poor form.
Still I held my tongue. Did not like it but did not complain.Trying to get a rancid sly dig at me after me not having reacted - with the "Rancidora" bullshit - and others cheering on that? Fucking pathetic and
everyone involved in that is responsible.
This is the kind of shit that ought to be looked at. It has not been an isolated thing and it is not. This is the kind of behaviour that ought not be considered valued by I2. The taking the step from tough but fair to poor form is not that hard.
An example may be being one of many to accept a fun trolling of a forum and clowning around and being stupid and irrelevant, causing the forum owner to be slightly confused. That shit is funny and fine. Then you could take it further. You could try to get naked shots of them or critical information to use against them. See, up to this point it is reasonably lighthearted and not mean-spirited and potentially harmful. Certainly not undeserving of possible harm this effort may cause.
No it is not being oversensitive. I personally believe that it is poor form. Yes i have no issue trolling trolls and flaming flamers. But then that is not what this is about. I would hope that this place did not accept and even endorse the types of behaviours that cross into simply bad form. I2 is set up to be combative and allow freedom of expression. It is set up to enable spazzes. It is not set up to enable people to be arseholes.
There has been a recent exodus of members and I feel strongly that the recent change in culture that I have notice (irrespective of whether you have or not) is a BIG factor. I pointed out my reasoning. (without shouting or stamping my feet).
