What's new
By:

Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, now, now, junebug. Time to move along, put some blues on and mebbe forget dis all happn'd.
 
Hopper said:
What mischaracterization? Just so you don't think this question I'm asking is simply rhetorical, let me make it clear that I am asking you directly: WHAT MISCHARACTERIZTION?
Click to expand...

Considering I didn't use the word mischaracterization I'm not certain why you're throwing a fit.

Well, to begin with, I simply asked Mo a question.
Click to expand...

No, you're trying to get a second opinion by shopping for a different set of moderators and you're asking her a question in her capacity as a moderator. It doesn't take genius to figure out why you want this. Your recourse is Jason or colton. Not me, not moe, not the moderator that you asked for clarification. To the extent you want to have a private conversation with moe where no one else can "intervene" I suggest you use the PM feature.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Considering I didn't use the word mischaracterization I'm not certain why you're throwing a fit.
Click to expand...

My mistake, and I apologize for my lack of clarity. A "mischaracterization" is implied when you suggest that my "characterization" was erroneous, but I fully admit that is not the word you used and that I simply inferred it. I still can't see where anything that I "characterized" was wrong, or that the facts I asserted are disputed, though.



Sirkickyass said:
To the extent you want to have a private conversation with moe where no one else can "intervene" I suggest you use the PM feature.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this, and your other suggestions about how I "should" do things, eh, Kicky? For your information, I previously contacted Mo by PM and asked her if she was willing to discuss this issue with me. Her response was that, yes, she would be willing, but would prefer to discuss it in the forum, rather than in PM's.

Before you impulsively call me a liar, or sumthin, you might want to confirm that with her.
 
I previously contacted Mo by PM and asked her if she was willing to discuss this issue with me. Her response was that, yes, she would be willing, but would prefer to discuss it in the forum, rather than in PM's.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like a preference for a forum where others can chime in. Guess you'll have to take that particular complaint up with her.
 
Sirkickyass said:
...you're probably not doing yourself any favors with respect to an event where the issue comes up again. This line of argumentation you're taking is probably simply serving to harden positions rather than soften them.
Click to expand...

So, because I don't agree with you, it will be worse when "the issue comes up again," eh, Kicky?

Notwithstanding your smug, solipsistic, and self-righteous self-assurance that your assertions are indisputably and obviously correct, and notwithstanding the troupe of brown-nosing cheerleaders who have come in to high-five you in this thread, one fact remains: You have failed to present any rational justification for this infraction. You have succeeded in one thing, to wit: Using every possible method you can think of to give the appearance that I am a liar, etc.

Then, under threat of further punishment, you tell me to sit and watch you slander me and distort the true situation with half-truths, utter falsehoods, etc. If I don't just "sit and take" your abuse, it's gunna git worse, eh? Not the least bit surprised to see you take that position, of course, but I still aint intimidated by your "power," sorry.
 
Hopper said:
So, because I don't agree with you, it will be worse when "the issue comes up again," eh, Kicky?

Notwithstanding your smug, solipsistic, and self-righteous self-assurance that your assertions are indisputably and obviously correct, and notwithstanding the troupe of brown-nosing cheerleaders who have come in to high-five you in this thread, one fact remains: You have failed to present any rational justification for this infraction. You have succeeded in one thing, to wit: Using every possible method you can think of to give the appearance that I am a liar, etc.

Then, under threat of further punishment, you tell me to sit and watch you slander me and distort the true situation with half-truths, utter falsehoods, etc. If I don't just "sit and take" your abuse, it's gunna git worse, eh? Not the least bit surprised to see you take that position, of course, but I still aint intimidated by your "power," sorry.
Click to expand...

This sure looks like backseat moderating to me. I vote for a ban.


*high fives Tink*
 
Raspberry Delight said:
This sure looks like backseat moderating to me. I vote for a ban.


*high fives Tink*
Click to expand...

Your better bet would be this:

Arguing with Moderators: Vehement arguing or abusive comments directed at moderators after having received an infraction may lead to an immediate additional infraction.
Click to expand...

But I'm not going there. I'd have to define arguing, what constitutes a moderator, what constitutes abusive, whether or not it was directed at me, whether or not aint thinks he's being vehement, whether aint's subjective state of mind when making the comments matters, whether he's received an infraction "immediately prior" to those statements etc etc.

It's just not worth the headache.

It's just impossible to figure out what any rule means you know. Certainly if you're told not to do something or you might get an infraction, it's totally unpredictable continuing to do it would lead to an infraction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page
Back
Top