It depends entirely, doesn't it Gareth? Sometimes justifications, right or wrong, paint a picture from the poster, that the person interviewing them can not paint. Sometimes it is good to see how someone manipulates truth. Sometimes we are amazed at honesty from a place of dark deceit.
But hey you "don't recall"? Let me help you with at least one instance and we can work from there.
You supported the lie that Amy sprouted publicly that Rossco was organising a group of people to attack Amy and yourself. That was of course Bullshit, but Amy endorsed it publicly. Rossco always went straight to the source of the problem, Amy, at every instance without organising anything with any one. Also without involving himself in things like the gagging avatar thing or whatever. This is whilst you were doing your best to distance yourself from any direct involvement.
When Rossco was banned this was the reason given, that he was the ringleader to these actions. She stated she had proof given by Pm but could not publish it. This too was bullshit as there was no proof, because there was no truth behind the allegation. It was just a sneaky manipulative lie that she could tell, whilst pretending to hide behind the good form of allowing the non-existent "whistleblower" anonimity
There was no whistleblower. No Pm. Just a very angry lady, to whom you are married, wanting to force her will and make a somewhat plausible smear and ban on Rossco. She was prepared to lie to get it.
Whatever I say here in response I know you will not believe or respect unless it's "you are completely 100% right", with that disclaimer out of the way however:
Rossco was indeed encouraging people to cause trouble or protest in some way Amy's actions and given how much both of us have put into getting this community (AFF) off the ground (even if you think it's one we apparently don't fit into anymore - it wouldn't exist without us) the attacks were just too much.
I admit my very obvious bias as we're talking about my wife here, but I still stand by Amy's decisions at that time based on the attacks we were receiving. Take that as you like.
OK this is 'how i like'. I am/was Rossco and i know i did not organise any attacks and while people whilst i was well aware of different tactics people were doing to let their displeasure known I am not and never was one for subtlety. I went straight to Amy (who i determined as the crux of the problem. I did not seek to encourage anyone.)
If you are rossco then you know rossco's old password at AFF or can access the associated email account. How would you like to verify yourself?
The reason i'm asking is because I need consent before I manually query the database and paste the PMs here. If you think they don't exist then you have nothing to fear and your consent should be forthcoming, right?
I'll respond to the rest of your post after this
I know my old password of course. It is a common password I use at most places I am online. Anything to fear? What are you on about?
Out of interest. (It just occurred to me). Are you posting trying to post evidence from MY Pm's that I was organising the members of AFF in their actions against Amy and yourself? If so that is fine. You won't find any. OR are you atually trying disprove my point in posting Amy's Pm's that she recieved from members showing evidence that I was organising members in actions against you both.
Slight difference. I was arguing the latter. Same result ultimately but the former requires my password details and the latter doesn't. I was making claims on the latter.
I won't ask for your password, I couldn't find it even if I wanted to anyway as our database only stores an MD5 hash. You can tell me the MD5 hash of your old password in private and I can compare it to check.
Then I will ask your consent to open your AFF PMs and post whatever I find here.
I have no idea what the MD5 hash is or even what an MD5 hash is for that matter.
I do think that you are going about this incorrectly. Why?
Your wife stated publicly to all members that she had been PM'ed from someone publicly saying that I was organising members to attack you and Amy.
This is a lie.
Some were certainlyand there was a lot of communication going on. I was privvy to all or most of it I guess. But I chose rather to do my own thing and my own thing was going to the source of the problem...Amy.
What exactly DO you want with my PM's?
The Pm in question is this supposed evidence of me organising members that your wife allegedly recieved with "evidence".
Start there Gareth.
When you do not find the evidence. Then sure you have four choices as i see it. Admit she did lie. fabricate the 'evidence to protect her convenient lie, ignore it and do not seek to follow up on it, or then look through MY Pm's to see if whilst she lied about having evidence whether in truth she had no evidence but I was still a clever ringleader with evidence of my organising skills contained in the Pm's.
Doesn't that make a little more sense to you.
I guess IF you choose to goes the last path it really doesn't help your cause either as there will not be any evidence there either and will leave you will either the big admission of lying, the necessity to fabricate or transparent silence on the matter.
Anything short of the admission thing will have me call you on it though. Just so you know.
