Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

[Hopper]

Without having access to your actual PM box or to the PM sent box of the moderator who sent you the warning I can't look at the auto-generated text that contains the links....Feel free to forward to my PM box your warning message and I'll take a look.

I could delete any link that was there, so don't take my word for it. Ask Catratcho for his copy.

In any event, I think it is clear that given the quoted text of the warning that you could have easily found the string...

In other words, you continue to "believe" whatever it is that you WANT to believe, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary. What else is new? I've already told you: There is NO SUCH STRING in that thread that I can find. Perhaps I miscalculated, or overlooked something, that's a possibility. But, until you know there is such a "string" why do you continue to insist that it is "clear" that I could "easily find it?"

I think I know why, but I'll let you tell me, if you care to.

 

[Hopper]

In light of your recent editing, are you now willing to retract this bogus claim, Kicky:?

Before (when it was originally reported) I had a direct link. I didn't have to "go looking" for it.

 

[sirkickyass]

I could delete any link that was there, so don't take my word for it. Ask Catratcho for his copy.

I would have assumed that you wouldn't tamper with evidence. I don't generally make it a habit to assume that people will attempt to mislead me at every turn.

I've already (I believe) solved the mystery in any case, see the EDIT in the post above.

I've already told you: There is NO SUCH STRING in that thread that I can find.

The referenced string of five starts here: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20270&viewfull=1#post20270

The referenced string of six starts here: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20253&viewfull=1#post20253

The full referenced string of "16 out of 23" starts here: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20199&viewfull=1#post20199

If anything it appears we gave you too much credit. It looks closer to 16 of 20 on this pass.

If you looked at the thread, I have no idea how you missed this.

 

[sirkickyass]

In light of your recent editing, are you now willing to retract this bogus claim, Kicky:?

It's not a bogus claim. The link is attached to the original report we received. This is generated independently of your warning.

This is what I saw (with the reporter's name redacted). As you can see, I was not lying when I said I was given a link.

Redacted has reported a post.

Reason: 10 of the last 12 posts are from Hopper. Even with him on ignore, it makes these threads hard to read. Nobody ever seems to get back to me on these reports -- are they just getting deleted?

Post: The Morman hypothetical
Forum: General Discussion
Assigned Moderators: calijazz, Sirkickyass, catratcho, moevillini, Bronco70, Revolution 9

Posted by: Hopper
Original Content:If your contention is that one simple belief, standin all by itself, is insufficient to be called a religion, I see your point, but that aint really the issue here. Theism, in isolation, is not a "religion" either, but it's got the makins of one.

You can click the topic title and it takes you to the reported post. No retraction necessary.

 

[Hopper]

The full referenced string of "16 out of 23" starts here: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20199&viewfull=1#post20199

I have no idea how you missed this.

This is all so ridiculously "clear" and "easy," eh, Kicky?

(1) If you paid the slightest bit of attention to anything I say, which you obviously don't, then you would know that the "string" COULDN'T POSSIBLY start there, because I've already told you why it couldn't.

If it did, it would have to end AFTER the message from Catracho was sent.

(2) You conclude: "If anything it appears we gave you too much credit. It looks closer to 16 of 20 on this pass." This appears to be yet another concession that you have pointed to no string of "16 out of 23," as you (contrarily) claimed in the sentence before.

 

[sirkickyass]

That is incorrect. Your 16th message in the sequence is time-stamped 07-07-2010 08:13 PM.

The warning you got is time-stamped 07-08-2010 05:44 AM.

Last I checked 7-08-2010 05:44 AM is AFTER 7-7-2010 8:13 PM.

But, I see you didn't even bother to click the links and just assumed I was either dumb or lying to you.

(2) You conclude: "If anything it appears we gave you too much credit. It looks closer to 16 of 20 on this pass." This appears to be yet another concession that you have pointed to no string of "16 out of 23," as you (contrarily) claimed in the sentence before.

Let me get this straight, your argument is that your behavior was actually worse than we claimed and that this somehow makes us wrong. Wow. Just wow.

 

[VINYLONE]

To make fun of retarded people is in poor taste. This much is true. That said, what Hopper has shown us in this thread is that he is either retarded or just plain lacks common sense. Kick, I don't understand how you've managed to stay level headed with him. I mean, the mountain of evidence is so clear, it's ridiculous.

 

[Hopper]

This is what I saw (with the reporter's name redacted). As you can see, I was not lying when I said I was given a link.

OK, I'm satisfied that you did get a link. It's not to 16 of 23 posts, as I was supposed to be "looking" for and "easily find," but it is a link.

It also shows that you had reason to know exactly where to look, unlike me, but it still doesn't show the thing that you expect me to easily find.

Your attempt to ridicule me is about the same as me ridiculing for not "easily finding" the "unicorn (or any other non-existent thing) out yonder way."

Will you EVER get over yourself and cease trying to ridicule others for not knowing what you don't know (and CAN"T know, because it's untrue), I wonder? Somehow, I doubt it.

 

[VINYLONE]

Oh, well, there you has it. Hoppy is sats'fied. All is well now. Thanks ya Hoppy. Mebbe we can all go to sleep now. Eh?

 

[Hopper]

Let me get this straight, your argument is that your behavior was actually worse than we claimed and that this somehow makes us wrong. Wow. Just wow.

No, that is not "my argument" at all, and only someone either extremely inattentive or extremely reckless with the truth would try to pretend that it was. Still got that strawman kit handy, I see.

My factual point (not argument) is that a string of "23" cannot possibly end after 20. I really didn't think I'd have to explain to you that 20 is not 23, but....

 

[sirkickyass]

Hopper, if you were unable to figure out where the referenced string of posts was because the next 23 posts starting with https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20199&viewfull=1#post20199 contained 17 posts by you instead of 16 then I don't know what to tell you.

Are you done?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Oh, it was that thread?

Make that THREE laughing smilie faces.

Edit:

My count had it 15 out of 19, but I didn't really stress myself in counting, so I might have been off somehow

 

[Hopper]

Hopper, if you were unable to figure out where the referenced string of posts was because the next 23 posts starting with https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20199&viewfull=1#post20199 contained 17 posts by you instead of 16 then I don't know what to tell you.

The "next 23" end after the referenced starting point extend PAST the time of the message, Kicky, as I've pointed out several times, and therefore could NOT be the string I was told to look for. If you still can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you.

And, yes, it is obvious: You don't know what to tell me.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I am now picturing aint being given directions to an oasis. He is told "go straight THAT way." He goes straight. The oasis shows up just to his left, he passes it by inches, then gets upset and complains that the directions he got were bad since the oasis wasn't directly in front of him.

 

[Hopper]

The "complaint:" "Reason: 10 of the last 12 posts are from Hopper. Even with him on ignore, it makes these threads hard to read."

I wonder if it ever occured to any mod that if:

(1) I am making a lot of the posts, and
(2) The preceding posts refer to, and arise out of, my prior posts, and
(3) The intervening posts are responses to my posts, and
(4) The subsequent posts are responses to my posts, and
(5) He refuses to read my posts, because he has me on "ignore," then

He could not possibly have any real interest in following the thread, and hence that his "complaint" could not be legitimate.

His complaint would have much better put, and much more honest, if he had said: "Reason: BECAUSE he has Hopper on ignore, it makes these threads hard to read."

If he has me on ignore then he presumably doesn't WANT to read it, so why should he "complain" about his own choices?

His real complaint: I don't like Hopper, and he is posting. Can you stop him?

 

[sirkickyass]

The "next 23" end after the referenced starting point extend PAST the time of the message, Kicky, as I've pointed out several times, and therefore could NOT be the string I was told to look for. If you still can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you.

And, yes, it is obvious: You don't know what to tell me.

We've been over this.

Your 16th message in the sequence is time-stamped 07-07-2010 08:13 PM.

The warning you got is time-stamped 07-08-2010 05:44 AM.

Last I checked 7-08-2010 05:44 AM is AFTER 7-7-2010 8:13 PM.

You made no response.

Phrased a different way, "Hopper, if you were unable to figure out where the referenced string of posts was because the next 20 posts starting with https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/6...ll=1#post20199 contained 16 posts by you then I don't know what to tell you. Next time when we warn not to do something we'll try to refrain from making a counting error in your favor."

Alternatively, even if I had accepted your line of logic it would still lead to the same conclusion. If we take the 23 posts made immediately prior to the issuance of your warning, starting at https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20030&viewfull=1#post20030 and ending at https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20949&viewfull=1#post20949 the string still contains 16 posts by you out of 23. Your claim that no such string exists is so clearly erroeneous that I don't know what to tell you. Do you want me to provide you individual links to all 16 of your posts in the string?

 

[VINYLONE]

I am now picturing aint being given directions to an oasis. He is told "go straight THAT way." He goes straight. The oasis shows up just to his left, he passes it by inches, then gets upset and complains that the directions he got were bad since the oasis wasn't directly in front of him.

Pegged. Completely.

 

[Hopper]

Kicky, how easily you lose track of what you start out to prove, eh?

1. You came into this thread specifically to ridicule me for not finding a string of 16 of 23 posts within 4 minutes. Here, after hours, YOU still haven't shown me a string which could possibly be the one referred to.

2. Prior to that, the issue was this (very short version): I got a message which alluded to "bizarre formatting" and alluded to non-existent pages and a "string" which is very difficult to identify, if it exists. I was confused. I wanted to see the actual "formatting" that was considered "bizarre," if that was even the basis for the complaint. I pointed out the source of my confusion, and asked for clarification. Twice. No response was forthcoming. You then tell the world that I was "repeatedly" told exactly what the nature of the complaint against me was. That was then, and is now, untrue. You seem to think you have somehow proved otherwise by saying I should "easily" have figured it out. I can find nothing objectionable in either the content or the formatting of the posts, even after I finally get some idea of what posts were cited.

 

[sirkickyass]

So there is absolutely no doubt given aint's continued insistence and Darkwing saying he counted 15 here is a link to all 16 individual posts:

1. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20199&viewfull=1#post20199

2. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20228&viewfull=1#post20228

3. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20253&viewfull=1#post20253

4. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20254&viewfull=1#post20254

5. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20260&viewfull=1#post20260

6. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20262&viewfull=1#post20262

7. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20263&viewfull=1#post20263

8. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20265&viewfull=1#post20265

9. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20270&viewfull=1#post20270

10. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20274&viewfull=1#post20274

11. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20284&viewfull=1#post20284

12. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20286&viewfull=1#post20286

13. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20481&viewfull=1#post20481

14. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20871&viewfull=1#post20871

15. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20884&viewfull=1#post20884

16. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20949&viewfull=1#post20949

All are time-stamped prior to the issuance of aint's warning. Backing out three posts from the first one is the post by Marcus aint referenced long ago. It appears that aint simply miscounted and has never bothered to double-check.

 

[Hopper]

For some reason, Kicky:

1. No one took that kind of care to inform me in the warning, and

2. Prior to this you have INSISTED that a different sets of posts constituted the string in question,

3. The string you end up with is the very one I pointed out, not the one you said it was, and

4. You couldn't figure all that out in 4 minutes, even though I pointed it out to you in the very post you ridiculed me for. Are you stupid?