Thunder wrote:
[Diafel,
1) I was temporarily banned 3 times on OKJT the last one was for asking a question and putting a smiley face on it, in fact exactly the same question that Joe C asked me (with a smiley face on it), a simple copy and paste, Dan took that post as a personal attack on Joe, I decided at that point and for that reason to terminate my membership at OKJT, nothing more nothing less.
2) As for putting money on me leaving because of "lies" told about the SC meeting you would lose for two reasons 1. I am not embarrassed and 2. because I told no lies about what went on at that meeting, that is Joe C's pipe dream. Here is the perfect opportunity for him to prove me wrong, and if he does so I will voluntarily leave this forum. Let him get anyone who was at that meeting to post here that his name was not brought up at the SC discussion, all he needs is one and I am gone!
?
1) You had been banned for everything from standard name calling, calling people ( including Chip) pirates, and generally trolling. To my my knowledge you were NEVER banned for any question asked of me- though you may have been for some of your replies- though not at my request. I also believe you were banned more than 3 times, but I could be wrong.
2) The lies that YOU DID tell about the meeting were in regard to me. You PMed them to me. I knew they were lies immediately. I asked you if you would like to see them posted publicly, and you said YES. This at least proves that you weren't embarrassed- not ethical enough.
These lies were basically in regard to supposed verbal attacks on me at the meeting, and - this is hysterical- how you were the only one to defend me there. This of course was the tip-off. After posting - again, AT YOUR REQUEST- because PMs are normally PRIVATE, at least in my book- I received several PMs, phone calls, and some posted publicly. Not one single such incident occurred- as I well knew already.
Yes, all the folks there disagreed with my point of view ( at least publicly), but no one seemed to have much of a personal problem with me. As you know, I actually received several very polite and sincere invitations to that meeting.
Why? Because though I don't agree with the public stance of those who agree with SC's methodology, I just debate the points in question. I don't use personalized negativity- though I'm learning to in your case- because it's become proveable. Why no flames? Because it's NOT PERSONAL. I pretty much like and respect most of the folks involved in this issue's debate ( as best one can from internet contact only), no matter which "side" they are on. Most post intelligently, and even if I might disagree with a point, I learn from the post as well.
Also, once you flame someone, you pretty much close their ears to any useful info that you may have- they concentrate on the insult.
Also it IS an internet forum. By definition it CAN'T be personal.
Heck, I even know YOUR good points, which include a great sense of humor, solid tech knowledge and sound skills, and a good show running philosophy. Unfortunately, if one only knows you from the SC debates, there is no way they would get even a glimpse of the good stuff, and that's a freakin' shame.
Anyway, as stated above, you have become ( and I truly believe this)- at least in the SC debate threads, a person whose intent is just to disrupt said threads-period. Kind of "If ya can't beat 'em, screw up, distract, and attempt to detract from any useful information that might be gained". Dis-information with a twist. I now believe that what you do on the forums is done purposely.
I remember when you weren't like this- especially the dishonesty. What the heck happened to you......
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Moody? 
Confused? 
trumps confused 
around these parts.
