I really can't believe you all bought it!

[odeon]

Hiding behind the error message I got when I tried to take a backup of this place.

Ah, the site is too large to back it up from SMF directly. I'll PM you.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Obviously I don't *know* why AFF closed down.

Then why are you trying to claim otherwise??

You're just doing what you do best, talking out of both sides of your mouth.

This is just the latest example of you doing this, I've spotted it on numerous occasions.

I've got your bag of tricks fairly well figured out at this point.

[odeon]

Obviously I don't *know* why AFF closed down.

Then why are you trying to claim otherwise??

You're just doing what you do best, talking out of both sides of your mouth.

This is just the latest example of you doing this, I've spotted it on numerous occasions.

I've got your bag of tricks fairly well figured out at this point.

Because I happen to believe that what I heard is credible and, if true, affects us directly. But then, you knew that.

I'll now look forward to you staying silent unless you know for a fact that what you're posting is true. In your case, this should be pretty much all the time.

[Al Swearegen]

Maybe I'm jumping to silly  conclusions,  but I assume  it was Minister of silly walks who told Odeon the other version, Al. Looks like a no-brainer to me. Or am I missing something?

 

Aspiesforfreedom. Brought down by Al's vendetta against the founders/admins of that site.

   Ofc. could be that third , unknown party told both Odeon and MoSW same story.  In any case , I see no reason to suppose  that Odeon just made the story up. Looks to me like he all-too-cleary believes it. Confirmation bias , maybe?

In any case , it only takes one person to start a rumour. You can' reasonably nor realistically accuse everybody who believes it of dishonesty. If somebody trust their  source, they will swallow it all-to-often .  Happens all the time,.

In other words, you don't know my sources or what I'm basing my stance on but think I'm wrong nevertheless?

I find what I've heard credible because I've heard it from several sources, but also because I've seen first hand what Al does here. Obviously I don't *know* why AFF closed down but neither does anyone else other than Amy Nelson.

I'd like to close this with my favourite SNL quote: Before criticising someone you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticise them you'll be a mile away and have their shoes.

I doubt it. Again, directly after the event two tbreads and many members fro mm there posting here and not the general consensus but the entire discourse is one way traffic. They ALL agree with my description of what went down.

Credibility backs that given the cliseness to t gyme event, people involved and the shared perspective by so many.

Then we have you, running in complete contradiction to this with imaginary sources.

It makes you look like a liar or a misled fool willing to state lies as fact when he want to spread smear and propaganda.

Slimy

[Al Swearegen]

Obviously I don't *know* why AFF closed down.

Then why are you trying to claim otherwise??

You're just doing what you do best, talking out of both sides of your mouth.

This is just the latest example of you doing this, I've spotted it on numerous occasions.

I've got your bag of tricks fairly well figured out at this point.

Because I happen to believe that what I heard is credible and, if true, affects us directly. But then, you knew that.

I'll now look forward to you staying silent unless you know for a fact that what you're posting is true. In your case, this should be pretty much all the time.

I call bullshit again.

[Pyraxis]

What's this about imaginary sources? It's clear Ministry of silly walks is one source, and as far as I know  they are neither Gareth nor Amy. The threads point out a bunch of other people who have their own takes on what happened and how it affects them. So why insist that ALL agree with you in full?

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Obviously I don't *know* why AFF closed down.

Then why are you trying to claim otherwise??

You're just doing what you do best, talking out of both sides of your mouth.

This is just the latest example of you doing this, I've spotted it on numerous occasions.

I've got your bag of tricks fairly well figured out at this point.

Because I happen to believe that what I heard is credible and, if true, affects us directly. But then, you knew that.

I'll now look forward to you staying silent unless you know for a fact that what you're posting is true. In your case, this should be pretty much all the time.

Aah, now one of your other favored tricks, shaming tactics.

Now here's why that's false.

Assuming you believed that, as a person who was trying to be honest as opposed to one who only wanted to smear, would admit that their source of info was limited and when confronted by direct witnesses to the event who contradicted that story, admit that you're probably wrong, or at least you don't know what you're talking about.

You on the other hand, play this wishy washy game of "gee maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong" so regardless of where the chips fall, you can still claim to be right and save face.

It's like you're the bastard younger half brother of Hillary Clinton or something.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

What's this about imaginary sources? It's clear Ministry of silly walks is one source, and as far as I know  they are neither Gareth nor Amy. The threads point out a bunch of other people who have their own takes on what happened and how it affects them. So why insist that ALL agree with you in full?

People are entitled to their own opinions, just not their own facts.

[Al Swearegen]

What's this about imaginary sources? It's clear Ministry of silly walks is one source, and as far as I know  they are neither Gareth nor Amy. The threads point out a bunch of other people who have their own takes on what happened and how it affects them. So why insist that ALL agree with you in full?

As I say, facts do not pick sides. Sometimes saying that something is your opinion doesn't imbue it with any more truth.

For example, I do not like Odeon and I do not like the increase in moderation creep on I2. HOWEVER,  if I start putting it around that I2 is now the most moderated forum in Autism spaces, this would be untrue and hearing it from others doesn't make it truer. I may have reason to say so and acknowledge the level of moderation as a problem but that is not the same as making the allegation or even the inference. Disliking Odeon does not make it truer nor make it more likely that I am more likely to believe dishonesty.

That is Odeon now. Amy was responsible for Amy's actions on AFF. AFF getting closed down was due to her reactive volatile and authoritarian behaviour. Nothing more nothing less.

The fact too is I was already gone when she spat the dummy because people questioned why I was gone and wanted me back. She did not like that. The vendetta, bullying and casual narrative falls rather flat

[Jack]

I'd like to close this with my favourite SNL quote: Before criticising someone you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticise them you'll be a mile away and have their shoes.

One of my favorite quotes is also a Jack Handey.

If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.
~Jack Handey

[Pyraxis]

What's this about imaginary sources? It's clear Ministry of silly walks is one source, and as far as I know  they are neither Gareth nor Amy. The threads point out a bunch of other people who have their own takes on what happened and how it affects them. So why insist that ALL agree with you in full?

People are entitled to their own opinions, just not their own facts.

That was kind of my point.  Or am I misunderstanding you here?

[Al Swearegen]

What's this about imaginary sources? It's clear Ministry of silly walks is one source, and as far as I know  they are neither Gareth nor Amy. The threads point out a bunch of other people who have their own takes on what happened and how it affects them. So why insist that ALL agree with you in full?

People are entitled to their own opinions, just not their own facts.

That was kind of my point.  Or am I misunderstanding you here?

If I went to WP and said, because I don't like Odeon, that 12 was the most moderated forum in the autistic forums space and that it was more moderated than those boards that have since closed, then some from there stated it as a truth to you guys, would this simply be a matter of opinion or a false and dishonest allegation?

Let's be candid. I think the level of moderation creep from Odeon is shameful and if he continues, it may one day reach some other heavily moderated forums BUT I am not going to dishonest state bullshit to sell a narrative. It would be dishonest to say this is as heavily moderated as WP for example.

With the above hypothetical,  what if Rabbit from Hell, Robert N, Meadow, Buttcoffee and TCO all agreed with my smear, would that mean the statement was any more credible or correct?

This is the bullshit Odeon is trying.  He ought to have plenty of material without resorting to base dishonesty. This all presumes his sources are not simply him making it all up to smear me and further his narrative by methods fair or foul

[Pyraxis]

If you actually believed it, I don't think it would be dishonest.

That said, I don't need you to explain Odeon to me, I can form my own opinions.   

[Al Swearegen]

If you actually believed it, I don't think it would be dishonest.

That said, I don't need you to explain Odeon to me, I can form my own opinions.   

I dont need to. Just replying. Sharing perspectives.

I think he is peddling dishonesty as fact-based claims and when called on it, is faking ignorance.

I think its slimy

[odeon]

What's this about imaginary sources? It's clear Ministry of silly walks is one source, and as far as I know  they are neither Gareth nor Amy. The threads point out a bunch of other people who have their own takes on what happened and how it affects them. So why insist that ALL agree with you in full?

People are entitled to their own opinions, just not their own facts.

The irony.