So yes, you have. And you can't bluff me on this issue.
Kicky, I see this as a deliberate and disingenuous attempt, by you, to cast unwarranted aspersion on my veracity, and I have decided not to let it go without comment.
Although you can easily "bluff" uninformed readers, you forget one thing: You can't "bluff" me either, because I too have access to all "warnings" I have been given.
The short version of the relevant exchange is this:
You've been told in the past numerous times.
So yes, you have. And you can't bluff me on this issue.
I'll come back to the "so" part of this post in a minute, but, for now, do you realize that, on the face of it, this is inconsistent with your own prior statements on the topic?:
You've been told to stop, once privately and now once publicly. I'll let you imagine what the next step is.
Of course, the "and now once publicly" part refers to the very post you are making. So, tell me, how does the "once privately" portion amount to being told "numerous times" in the past, which is what I denied?
You apparently see this conflict, and go on to attempt to buttress your attempt to portray me as a liar with allusions to "two PM's on this board" and "multiple [warnings, presumably]" occurences on the previous board:
I am personally aware of two PMs you have received on this board and multiple that you received on the previous incarnation of the board. Furthermore, I have access to copies of those private messages that have been sent to you by the moderating staff since the board was reset.
I will unequivocally state, for the record, that in all my years on the previous board I NEVER received any warnings or explanations against/about consecutive posts from any moderator or admin. I would be amazed if Colton, Jason, or anybody else told you otherwise.
As for your suggestive reference to "two" PM's on this board, we both know that the second PM addressed only my attempts to rectify the "bizarre formatting" that has been (unintentionally) built into this program, i.e., the glitch that often causes first posts in a new thread to appear in lines that are only 10-12 characters long. This often results in such "difficult to read clutter" as single words being chopped up and, without even the benefit of a hyphen, properly placed or not, "continued" to the following line (the continuity is hard to discern, in many cases).
I do recall an exchange between you and me personally, years ago, at a time when your were NOT a moderator. In that exchange, you expressed your preference that I post in a form that you preferred. We went on to discuss the reasons why you preferred one form and I preferred another. As I recall, the discussion ended with me saying something like this: "Tell ya what, Kicky, how about you post the way you prefer, and I'll post the way I prefer. Fair enough?"
Apparently you have NEVER forgotten that I wouldn't do your bidding at that time, and greatly resent it. You have since been given moderator "powers" and now seem bent on imposing your caprious will on all who haved dared to "defy" you on past occasions.
I agreed to follow the published rules here, and I will try to do so. That said, I still fail to see how me making responses to multiple posts by multiple posters can possibly be construed as "trolling," i. e., a "deliberate attempts to disrupt the usability of the boards" as the rules define it. Of course you have already made it eminently clear that what I understand from reading the rules is totally irrelevant to you. Your stance seems to be that the "rules" are to do whatever you tell me to do, however lacking in rational justification your demands may be.
